A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION

I've already stated that in my opinion the greatest wrestling magazine in the U.K is Power Slam magazine and I've collected it since the begining of its life. I've agreed with the opinions of the guy who writes it and owns it and on a few occasions even spoke to him. The latest issue, though brilliant, I couldn't help find myself, for the frist time ever, disagreeing with some of the stuff that was written. I've said that I wasn't going to broach this subject again, I'm sure it gets on people's nerves. For one time only though, I have to bring it back up. And that issue is The Rock defeating John Cena at Wrestlemania.

In the latest issue of Power Slam, the writer stated that John Cena should have beaten The Rock (just to point out Power Slam are as critical of John Cena as anyone) at Wrestlemania 28 because it would have been right for business. I disagree. Because what would have been achieved with John Cena beating The Rock? In a few bullet points here's why it made no difference and why the result on the night was correct.

1. John Cena wasn't harmed, in any way by the loss to The Rock. His image wasn't tarnished, his reputation wasn't damaged, if anything he looked better losing, thus telling the WWE Universe that he is willing to resepct and tip his cap to the legends of this business.
2. Despite the result, John Cena was always going to stay in the main even spot. A loss would never have meant that Cena would have dropped to the bottom of the ladder. There's no way Vince McMahon would ever bury someone like John Cena because even though he's so short on talent it's painful, Cena earns McMahon millions in merchandise sales alone.
3. Despite the result at Wrestlemania 28, John Cena was always going to be given the spot against Brock Lesnar and was always going to beat Lesnar at Extreme Rules 2012.
4. John Cena, win or lose at Wrestlemania 28 was always penned, I'm guessing, to enter the feud with John Laurientis and his stable of heels, which will of course be the feature feud of the summer.
5. Losing at Wrestlemania 28, John Cena would never have lost any fans. Reversing that, winning at Wrestlemania, John Cena wouldn't have gained any fans either. Those who hate him are not going to change their minds because he would have beaten The Rock. No one would have found him any less irritating whatever the result. All it would have meant is weeks of bragging and none of us need to listen to that.
6. If John Cena had have beaten The Rock, then the annoying, juvinile Cenation would always be convinced that John Cena, a man with no talent, was better than The Rock in every way. Everyone knows he isn't.
7. The  reason The Rock blew up so early in the match were due to a number of factors. The first is that WWE should have booked the contest at a half the length they did. Second, because it was his first singles match in 8 years. Thrid; his first singles match in 8 years was against a man with no talent or ability to be able to help The Rock in the biggest match of the year. A great wrestler, ring general, whatever you wish to call it my good people has the ability to take the spotlight, in a good way, from their opponent, whether they've never wrestled before or haven't wrestled one on one in 8 years can help cover up the fact that certain wrestler is tired, Cena couldn't. Had he been bothered to brush up his skills in the last 10 years, John Cena might have been able to help The Rock. Saying that, The Rock in the ring with anyone else, Triple H, Undertaker, Chris Jericho even C.M Punk might not have blown up so quickly or at all. A better standard of opponent, one who could wrestler might have put more effort in so The Rock didn't have to do most of the donkey work. Also, a great ring general and wrestler works for the match and for the audience. Cena works for no one but himself, that has been proven in 10 years. The Rock proved how good he is over the years in stunning matches with Austin, Undertaker, Angle, Triple H plus many more. Cena has had a handful of great matches that anyone would be happy to sit through again, most of them have been utter tat. The fact that Cena knows how to do none of the above (help another wrestler, elevate another wrestler, work for the match and audience) proves that the man doesn't deserve the main event spot he currently has.
8. The only harm the loss did Cena was to his massive ego.
9. It didn't hurt Cena to give back to the sport that he has taken so much from and given so little too, in the ring, with his awful attire and dull as dish water performances - to lose to a legend.
10. If Hulk Hogan can come back (2005, 2006) and not put anyone over without ridicule, then why are the rules differen't for The Rock?
11. WWE's attempt to pass John Cena off as an underdog at Wrestlemania 28, as done so by Machine Gun Kelly, were absolutley pathetic. No one believes John Cena is an underdog who isn't the favourite to win a fight. WWE audiences have been trained almost, to expect nothing but a Cena victory in every match.

I might be being picky here. You probably think so. I on the other hand think it important to get this out there. The result was right!

That was't the only thing I disagreed with. There were two other points. One was that no one needs to see a re-run of C.M Punk vs John Laurientis and the feud they had. I disagree. I'd rather sit through an unpredicatable feud with those two than a wholly predicatble one with Cena in the role of hard done by hero. Does anyone reading this think Cena will lose the feud? No, didn't think so. And exactly what is the use of booking John Cena vs John Laurientis at Over the Limit 2012? What a waste of time that is.

The last point that I had to pick up on and disagree with was of the TNA T.V Title. If you've been watching TNA recently then you'll know that the gold is to be defended every week on Impact. Power Slam said they couldn't see how this would elevate the title, I disagree. The belt is worthless at the moment, because the time and effort hasn't been put in to promote it. Take the belt off of Devon because he's awful, and put it onto someone who needs the exposure. Gunnar is a good choice! He has what it takes to carry the company and the title. It wouldn't work straight away, but a hefty run of say ten months with the TNA T.V title, defending it every week on Impact with a wrestler who has the skills of Gunnar would elevate the belt and the wrestler as two points which could be classed as 'must watch' television. The T.V title could be elevated to an important level if TNA got their heads out of their backsides.

You see? It's not all pointless T.V if someone puts the thought in. There are reasons for doing everythign in wrestling, you just have to find the best one.

I was surprised however, for the first time in ages, that WWE brought back Paul Heyman to WWE T.V. It might just be for a week, it might be for a while. The fact remains, that wherever Heyman goes, then he elevates whatever he touches with his presence.

Onwards and Upwards.