Originally Posted by Noid
See, I agree with you that Lesnar vs. Cena was fucking huge and was a worthy main event. But the WWE was in Chicago. If it were anywhere else, I would have gone with Lesnar & Cena headlining, but I think it would have sent a major message to the fanbase if the WWE had Brock Lesnar and Cena do their thing, but then be like "Well, this is the WWE Championship match and the proper main event." I think the booking for Cena and Lesnar was a bit wacky, and that of course also warranted it going on last, but I think if Lesnar had beaten Cena, the same shit with Triple H happened, and Punk had beaten Jericho in the main event, everyone would be a lot better off.
As viewers of the WWE, we are used to their weird ways, and their often nonsensical ways of telling stories. But sometimes I like to put myself into the shoes of a casual fan just coming in. What are some of the thoughts that you'd think they have? Here are some that I know I would come up with:
1. Why is there a WWE Champion and a World Heavyweight Champion? Which one means more?
2. Oh, so there's a brand split? One is the champion of RAW and one is the champion of SmackDown!. Well, why don't they call them the "WWE RAW Champion" and "WWE SmackDown! Champion" so I could know that, and why does the SmackDown! Champion appear on RAW?
3. OK, so Daniel Bryan is a SmackDown! wrestler and Chris Jericho is a RAW wrestler? Why is Daniel Bryan challenging for the RAW Championship and Chris Jericho challenging for the SmackDown! Championship?
It might just seem like semantics to us, as guys who have been around for the entirety of the brand split, or are already fans of wrestling and don't need to be sold. But sometimes I wonder if the WWE has trouble expanding its audience just because it doesn't make sense that there are two World Champions peacefully coexisting on the same show.
The reason I feel that is relevant is because we're sort of discussing treatment of the World Championships. "Why is CM Punk not main eventing if he's the WWE Champion?" is a perfectly reasonable question that a new fan of wrestling could ask the WWE, and I wonder what their response would be?
CM Punk isn't worthy, because he hasn't drawn a dime since July? Let's disregard that this is meant to be a "sport" that suspends disbelief, and that ratings and buyrates aren't trotted out on WWE television, and that each week is sold as being bigger than the last by them.
CM Punk isn't as good as John Cena? Well, why isn't John Cena the WWE Champion then? Give that man a WWE Title match and let's find out if Punk really is good enough. Truth be told (and don't get me wrong, I am NOT complaining that we got Punk vs. Bryan over the WWE Title on PPV), Punk vs. Cena was the logical main event for Over the Limit. Well, either that or Punk vs. Tensai. But that should have been the story heading into OTL, instead of Bryan being a random challenger who did not really make sense in the role (as damn good as the match was).
A guy who should really be ranked #3 at best beating up an old man is something that the WWE endorses more than a WWE Championship match or World Heavyweight Championship match? Are we meant to take this seriously?
In my opinion, if CM Punk is not the guy, then he shouldn't be the guy. It's really quite as simple as that. I'm of the opinion that Punk has the ability and talent to be "the guy," as he proved last year when he stole the show from essentially everybody else on the active WWE roster, but if you're too concerned that he's not drawing or can't convince people to buy into his next venture, then put the WWE Championship on someone who can. Yeah, it's a really shallow list, isn't it?
|