Wow, Kennedy Got Buried Tonight (SD Spoilers)

[Corkscrewed]

Okay, not buried persay, but he was made to look pretty bad IMO. The Batista/Kennedy main event match tonight ran like one big extended version of HHH/Warrior from Wrestlemania.

I mean, Kennedy is in control in the beginning (and really, most of the match) and uses great ring psychology to work on Batista's arm and really ground him. The announcers even tout it so, saying that it takes away Batista's upper body strength move arsenal, including the Batista Bomb.

Kennedy hits the Kenton Bomb and even the non-flying version of his Lambeau Leap move. He hits Batista with the belt. And Batista still kicks out.

Okay, he's champ; I can see that happening. It's okay so far.

Only then, within the last minute, they simply have Batista explode. Kennedy hits the rolling fireman's carry with some pretty good impact, and Dave practically no-sells it by getting back up almost immediately and laying Kennedy out with a vicious spinebuster. And Kennedy is dead for like 20 seconds while Batista recuperates to sell his injured shoulder.

And what happens next? A back-and-forth match with a close win by Dave? Interference? Kennedy making a younger mistake that costs him the win? Nope. Batista levels him with three more spinebusters, then hits him with a Batista Bomb as though he's perfectly fine. Cover. 1. 2. 3. Pinfall.

And Kennedy looks like a chump who throws everything at Batista, can't win, and then gets obliterated.



C'mon, writers. I'd understand if this was a jobber, but Kennedy's been built up to be an upper main eventer. No matter how much you want to build up your champ (and I know they want to build Batista up since he's the "underdog" against Undertaker at Wrestlemania), you don't fuck your upper midcarder that way. That was just infuriating to watch, because it broke so much common sense normally taught in Wrestling 101.




Anyway, had to get that off of my chest.

[Londoner]

It isn't a good sign to where they're going with kennedy I guess, it does seem like whoever us internet fans get behind gets made to look shit, maybe we should start liking Batista/Cena?

[The Optimist]

No, they're just giving Batista a nice hard blow before Wrestlemania. This is probably the best Kennedy match I've ever seen and I'm now confident that he could be a star in the buisness if given the right oppurtunity. Smackdown is so close to giving him that oppurtunity it's not even funny.

I really think that if he doesn't get a World Title by the end of the year then he'll end Taker's streak and take it at Wrestlemania, I'd mark out for that even if he were a heel.

[Londoner]

^ Yeah i've started to think they're just making Batista look strong like they did with taker but they could've made Kennedy look a bit stronger towards the end. Overall it wasn't that bad though.

[Corkscrewed]

Yeah, I know they wanted to really push Batista. But at the same time, this isn't how you do it.

It's the logical way--to a five year old. But c'mon... have the writers forgotten how to make BOTH men look good in a match? All it takes is one series to ruin it. You want Batista to look good? Have him overcome the odds to win. But don't have him completely erase the ring psychology of the past fifteen minutes (the arm injury) in about five seconds and go on a decimating super run. That's just stupid.

So I do hope Kennedy isn't getting buried. In fact, he should be the one to win the next MitB (assuming they have one this year, which they should).

[Londoner]

I was also thinking kennedy should be the one to win it, but its still to soon for him.

[M-A-G]

Kennedy's got no business going strong over the champion at this point in time.

[Blitz]

He shouldn't go over strong, but he shouldn't be buried either.

[darkpower]

Cork, I agreed with you. They could've made it a closer match than what I was like during the last 5-10 mins. Yeah, it made Batista strong, but it was as if the rest of the match didn't mean shit.

Oh, and I still say...KENNEDY AS A FACE







































.....A FACE!

[KingofOldSchool]

YAY

[owenbrown]

C'mon, writers. I'd understand if this was a jobber, but Kennedy's been built up to be an upper main eventer. No matter how much you want to build up your champ (and I know they want to build Batista up since he's the "underdog" against Undertaker at Wrestlemania), you don't fuck your upper midcarder that way. That was just infuriating to watch, <b>because it broke so much common sense normally taught in Wrestling 101.</b>

Hate to break it to ya, but common sense with the WWE writing staff is a major league oxymoron.

[Kane Knight]

For those of you unfamiliar with WWE's "formula for success," Here it is:


Introduce new competitor with great skills in the ring, on the mic, or in both fields. Note that you don't really need to be great.
Wait for him to get over with the crowd.
Destroy him against an established star
Enjoy your new "push."

[Pepsi Man]

Honestly, even as a Kennedy fan, I think you're just complaining too much. I think the match did a good job of putting Batista over, and despite the fact that he lost the match and the fact that his prior offense was "erased in seconds", so to speak, Kennedy got to put on an "impressive performance".

It works out fine. Batista's the face champ, and he was the "better man" that night.

[owenbrown]

This whole WWE match philosophy of "Heel works over face for most if not all of the match then the face makes a 'Superman'-esque comeback to win" is getting very old which is one of the reasons why I stop watching.

[Kane Knight]

So is Batista the "underdog" now?

[mike627]

As long as Kennedy is still a IWC favorite he will continue to pay for it,much like Benoit has been all these years.

[Kane Knight]

Yes. Vince is petty and vindictive and has a team of people who search internet forums to see who is liked. I know. I'm one of them. You know John Cena? I told him how over Cena was with IWFs, and he changed the gimmick the next day. Goodbye Eminem, Hello Will Smith.

[.44 Magdalene]

I really wouldn't be surprised if there were some sort of ... backwards dirt sheets. I don't know what that would be called. But sort of like the guys that leak info from the inside to the IWC?

Maybe there's a handful of guys leaking rumors and general opinion from the IWC to the inside...

[.44 Magdalene]

Really, though... in short, you can't start satire off with the words Vince is petty and vindictive...that'll just leave people confused as to whether or not you're bullshitting.

[Kane Knight]

You kidding? That's the best kind of bullshit.

[Astley316]

It shows how poor the wwe has got when they handle a match so poorly. The fact is its hardly surprsing kennedy got burried in his rematch because no body on raw in the prior 2 weeks even acknolwedged that The Undertaker might have to wrestle kennedy at wrestlemania. If the wwe had been smart this week on raw they would have kennedy show up when batista and taker were squaring down. It would have at least given the apperence that the title match had some chance of a title change happening.

[Corkscrewed]

Honestly, even as a Kennedy fan, I think you're just complaining too much. I think the match did a good job of putting Batista over, and despite the fact that he lost the match and the fact that his prior offense was "erased in seconds", so to speak, Kennedy got to put on an "impressive performance".

It works out fine. Batista's the face champ, and he was the "better man" that night.

Maybe, but I still can't shake the feeling that overall, Kennedy looked like a chump. Basically, you can throw your absolute best against a guy and have it count for nil in half a minute. I believe that's okay for a jobber or lower midcarder, but Kennedy has been booked as one of those "on the cusp" characters for a few months now, so they shouldn't break consistency on that.

I guess I just find it frustrating that I, as a fan who pays attention but certainly doesn't absorb himself in the business, can spot an easy mistake that writers, whose JOB is to engage themselves fully into these situations, totally crapped on.



BTW, I personally think Bats is an underdog against Taker (slim... prolly -3) because of Taker's longevity and 14-0 record. And especially if they're still going to have Batista be the guy to beat Taker, the only way they can generate any sort of intrigue in the match is to book Batista as the technical underdog.

[Jeritron]

Kennedy didn't look like a chump at all. Short of winning the title, he couldn't have been made to look any better. Its far from a burial.

Some of the most over stars and eventual champions dabbled in the main event while they were getting over early, before they ever won the title.

[Corkscrewed]

My main problem was just the ending, really. He looked good for 15 minutes. Really, really good. And then Batista Cenated and went kaplow on KK.

[Jeritron]

Thats because he's built up stronger. Doesn't make Kennedy look weak. Look how strong HHH has been built. He never beat Goldberg. They just want Batista to look like a fighting champion who prevailed and go strong into mania.

Kennedy gets away with it as the rookie who gave a goddamn showing. He earns back another title shot down the road, and that time he wins it. Kennedys not gonna be the type to cleanly beat a Batista.

[Jeritron]

If anyones buried in the main event, its a guy like Edge. This week Cena says "I hope Edge wins the triple threat so I can beat him" What the fuck is that? It's not even neccasary.

[Corkscrewed]

Just to make this clear: I didn't want KK to beat Batista, not even shadily. Just didn't want Batista to go Ultimate Warrior on Kennedy. That's all.

BTW, they weren't booking him as a rookie or anything, so the whole "rookie got killed" excuse doesn't really cut it.




Also, this isn't the first time they've done stupid inconsistencies like this. I mean, Cena ending Umaga's streak? Sure, it makes Cena look really, really strong, but you just killed nine months of build-up. Especially since it was via a rollup.

[Jeritron]

It was far from a squash Utlimate Warrior style. And Batista went Ultimate Warrior on him because thats how he's booked.

Of course KK shouln't have won, we agree on that. But how does this make him look bad? I say it doesn't. It's a hard fought title match the ends in a loss, that took like 3 finishers. Okay, he centered and then put him down, but thats what champions do. Thats what the winner of a wrestling match does.

I don't find anything wrong with this. In fact, I think it was the same case as any title match loss. If Bats just got a cheap win, that makes Batista look weak and out of character. If he gets a squash, its a bigger problem. This was just as normal as any title match where the challenger comes up short. I think this match made Kennedy and the champion both look better than the RR match did.

[addy2hotty]

You see Jerry, your comment about 'weak and out of character' sums it all up for me. Every champ has to be Superman these days. To me, they are all human and should have their 'off-days', 'time of the month', whatever.

Austin struggled past Foley back in the day. Didn't make him look any weaker. Bret Hart nearly lost to The Patriot FFS. Did it make him look weak? No.

Fallible, yes. Like every wrestler should be.

[Kane Knight]

My main problem was just the ending, really. He looked good for 15 minutes. Really, really good. And then Batista Cenated and went kaplow on KK.

And I saved the shirt for when he becomes President.

[Corkscrewed]

:rofl: Thanks, KK.

[Pepsi Man]

You see Jerry, your comment about 'weak and out of character' sums it all up for me. Every champ has to be Superman these days. To me, they are all human and should have their 'off-days', 'time of the month', whatever.

Austin struggled past Foley back in the day. Didn't make him look any weaker. Bret Hart nearly lost to The Patriot FFS. Did it make him look weak? No.

Fallible, yes. Like every wrestler should be.
A lot of Austin's bouts even with Foley, though, ended with OMG STUNNER!, and Austin usually "had Foley beat" several times per match since McMahon was "trying to screw Austin out of the title".

Bret's loss to The Patriot was also as a heel, and Bret's more of a technical wrestler that works a guy over than Batista could ever even DREAM of being, not to mention that Batista's being pushed going into WrestleMania as the defending champion, while Bret's match with The Patriot was on Bret's way out of the company to be honest.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I think it was just the formula of the standard WWE match. People have been saying it needs to change for years, but I'm going to say it again: When a heel dominates a face for most of the match, it should mean something. Batista has been able to work good matches with Finlay and Kennedy, but every match he's in he seems to get dominated.

I can understand why the WWE does that, the apparently want to see the overcoming of the odds. Just for once, though, I'd like to see the WWE make us realise that the odds are in favour of Batista, Bobby Lashley or John Cena. They are dominant, they are physically imposing, and instead of having them look like bitches during the match, why not have them control most of it? This wouldn't turn them heel, because I know that as a mark, if my hero kicked the ass of a bad guy for the majority of the match, I'd be loving every second of it.

I think the WWE should really expand and have some matches where the face dominates a little stronger, then the heel makes a comeback by cheating.

[BigDaddyCool]

Yeah, I hate the lack of psychology. Moves don't make a match.

[The Optimist]

My general rule is that faces should never be over-dogs, but in the position we're in right now we would either have to turn all of our champions simultaneiously or change our approach.

Face favorites should dominate, that's pretty simple. Heros should either be powerful or be bullied by the more powerful. They shouldn't be less weak then come back and make both of them look like shit.

[Londoner]

^ I agree about faces should never be over dogs, it just doesn't look right to me when i see Kennedy as the heel and he's way smaller than Batista, i can't take him seriously. Now imagine if Batista were heel and Kennedy were face and there was a really intense feud going and it was for the title with Batista as champ, i would love to see that personally. But face Batista Vs heel kennedy doesn't interest me.

[The Optimist]

Well, the hole idea is very base. Simple and maybe a bit less complicated than writers want because they might feel that they might be assaulted for coming up with ideas that are too cliche or slow for the times.

Faces are seemingly weak, or at least heels are more obviously strong. That's why they had to build up Kennedy's wins against Champions so much, it's the only thing that's obvious about him since he's not godly-great at wrestling like Kurt Angle, powerful like Kane, or crazy-fast or quick like Rey. That's his strength, he comes up with wins when it counts against guys that win alot and are important.

I suppose that's the psychology in having him dominate Batista the whole way, to say that Kennedy could have had a good shot at beating him but Batista is -insert buzz word here- enough to pull through anything. The part that doesn't make sense to me is the fact that he did dominate the whole match, he shouldn't be able to do that at all, the only thing he can really do is out-wrestle Batista which makes us realize that Batista is a bad wrestler. Kennedy doesn't dominate people to get wins, we weasels and cheats and plays the rules against itself to get wins.

They probably would have made more sense to have Batista dominate a good eight or nine minutes into it and then Kennedy mounts this sort of heel come-back where he hits him with the belt or something, kicks his ass for a couple minutes then hits some sort of move where you'd genuinely expect a pin, but Batista does one of those epic "he actually kicked out of a thing that he shouldn't have been able to" moments and kicks out. A few no-sells later and we have a Batista bomb.

It would show that Batista is too powerful to be tricked or screwed out of his title and that anyone who beats him would have to actually bring a whole package.

[Kane Knight]

That makes no sense though.

[Anybody Thrilla]

I'm not trying to complain, seeing as to how I only watch Smackdown like every other week or so, but I think that this thread title could have been worded a little more vaguely. It's one thing to say "SD Spoilers", but it's another to say that Kennedy got buried right there in the thread title. I mean, that's a dead giveaway of what happened. C'mon.

[Xero]

I'm not trying to complain, seeing as to how I only watch Smackdown like every other week or so, but I think that this thread title could have been worded a little more vaguely. It's one thing to say "SD Spoilers", but it's another to say that Kennedy got buried right there in the thread title. I mean, that's a dead giveaway of what happened. C'mon.
Now if you'd only take out the first sentence and added a spaz, I would have a whole new "WHAT THE FUCK" to play with.

[Team Sheep]

OMG I TOTALLY THOUGHT IT WOULD BE KENNEDY V TAKER AT WM 23 FUCKIN SPOILED IT FOR ME NOWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111 :rant:

[Anybody Thrilla]

Yeah, I thought about WHAT THE FUCK? as I was typing that, but I just thought I would point it out anyway.