[jcmoorehead]

Originally Posted by Sebastian Incorrect! Are the fans really accepting Cena, Batista and Orton? Doesn't seem so to me. There is a lot of complaining and unjustified comments made about all three men, Cena and Batista especially. People complain frequently about how Batista shouldnt be getting another title shot when, lets face it, the man is one of this generation's greatest young stars. Batista is what HHH was to late 90's.

People were perfectly willing to accept all three and still are. However you speak about change and Batista constantly getting title shots for over a year now is hardly change within the WWE is it? If anything it's the exact same thing over and over again.

Originally Posted by Sebastian Cena is the face of the company and many say he doesnt deserve it, but he paid his dues and he is one of the best total packages in the WORLD. John Cena is to 2000-2010 what Hogan was to 1980-1995 and what Rock/Austin was to late 90's. He is the "IT".

Again it's not that people don't feel Cena doesn't deserve it. It's the fact that he has been shoved down our throats as a superman that has annoyed everyone and causes people to tune out. When he won the title the first time it was the same exact thing every month. Again there was no change there.

Originally Posted by Sebastian Everyone likes to say "Why is the WWE trying to create a new Rock/Austin? These guys arent Rock/Austin, they suck!". This is simply not true and is false logic because they don't suck, they are just different. It is a new time and time for younger stars.

I have never heard anyone around here saying that. I've seen people saying "That guy looks like he could be the next Austin" when referring to people like Kennedy or mentioning the Rock when referring to people like MVP but I have never seen anyone complain about them trying to create a new Rock/Austin. Nor have i seen people complain about the stars not being Rock/Austin.

And yes we know it is a time for younger stars and if anything that is what a lot of the fans want to see.

Originally Posted by Sebastian Well maybe I am not reading deep enough because I dont see too many people writing about some of the recent changes as being good. Instead of saying how good WWE is booking RAW, people complain that Batista laid out CM Punk...which is GOOD BOOKING 101 (No, not because I have anything against Punk, but because it creates REAL heat between the stars).

Why would real heat between the stars be a good thing? Surely you'd want what you consider to be your top two stars to be on at least decent terms with each other.

Also why is squashing the champion of the show in a minute good booking 101? Good booking to me would be for one of them to win by a narrow margin after a decent contest. Squashing the champion makes them look weak and makes it look like the company doesn't care too much about them.

I understand it was a dark match and was only seen by the people in the arena so we shouldn't really take too much from it.

Originally Posted by Sebastian Also I dont see why people are so angry if a big face goes on a winning streak like Cena did. It is called the mechanics of the wrestling business. You want a guy to suceed, you make him look good and a winning streak helps with that. And Cena's winning streak was actually good and not a bunch of jobber squashings like Goldberg or Kozlov is doing now.

It wasn't about the winning streak he had. It was more how the winning streak was done. You mention how it was good as opposed to Goldbergs, yet many people will tell you that Goldbergs streak was probably one of the best ways to do that sort of angle.

Yes you want your champion to look good but you need to balance it between looking good and taking the piss. The fact that Cena constantly overcame the odds wasn't good booking it was just their way of forcing him down our throats. After a short while it became predictable and people wanted it to change.