BRM Reviews the 8/1/2011 Raw

[kiel297]

There's nothing wrong with it but did ya see the brag? now that's not cool.

This is true.

[cero2k]

There's nothing wrong with it but did ya see the brag? now that's not cool.

This is true.

that's actually in the things he gets for being MOTM...
anyway,back to topic

it doesn't answer ANY of my questions; I saw what happened, I know what I'm "spose" to believe, but I don't buy it. What he's saying is true, but I just don't buy Cena accepting the title when the guy who beat him for it still has it (And Cena would def wanna beat Punk for the belt just as Punk beat him instead of being given a rematch against a guy who'd already had a match that night, two matches the show before, a ladder match at the ppv, and was one of his "good friends; I don't buy Cena not wanting to give Rey a more fair chance. And if anyone wants to suggest that HHH MADE them wrestle, think again bc he explicitly stated that he talked to both men before making the decision). Yeah he lost the title bc he did the right thing; last year he got "fired" for doing the right thing. The right thing right now would be to relinquish his WWE title and vow to beat Punk at SS. THIS IS MY POINT. IT'S JUST NOT LIKE CENA TO ACCEPT SOMETHING KNOWING IT BELONGS TO SOMEONE ELSE.

Doing the right thing and taking opportunities are two different things. Cena did the right thing because he wasn't going to be the guy that screwed Punk, he knew what it did to HBK's career (screwing bret) and he didn't want to go that path, so that's doing the right thing, but at the same time, looking out for himself. Second, Cena will take any opportunity to regain the title, if he's done it with heels, there's no difference with faces, Rey accepted cuz he's a face, and a face never backs down, but in Cena's mind, this is just another opportunity to regain what he loves the most, the WWE World Title. After winning it, he thinks he righteously deserves the title. Not only for beating the current champ at that time, but because he won a legit competition like he always does. I don't think Punk's position here is about I beat you at MITB, but about I HAVE THE REAL TITLE, you just have a copy, hell, Punk's title should still have Cena's nameplate to piss him off.

Punk's claim to the title is above everyone else's bc HE WAS BACK WITH THE COMPANY BEFORE A NEW CHAMP WAS EVEN CROWNED!

not really, if Punk turned in the contract during the Cena/Rey match, a new world champ had already been crowed in Mysterio

I see what they're doing; I just think it's stupid and distracting from what was already a cool angle. RAW's playing up this huge deal about there being two champions instead of making it about a changing of the guard. HHH is trying to "sort out this mess" that was created seemingly for no reason, CM Punk is trying to force change in the WWE, and Cena's position is being threatened now more than ever. THAT'S ENOUGH; having them both have "legit" claims to the title is an overkill (and TOTALLY inaccurate, SINCE PUNK BEAT CENA FOR THE TITLE! And Cena, nor anyone else, beat Punk for the title. In my book, that gives Punk THE most legitimate claim and therefore he should be champion. It's not about being a CM Punk mark; it's about not being able to ignore the obvious). He was gon for ONE WEEK; let's not be ridiculous....

I agree that the whole double champ is overkill. But the two of the do have legit reasons, Punk can say the whole I was never beaten for the title, Cena can say, i legit won a title after you were stripped of yours.

[badnewzxl]

There's nothing wrong with it but did ya see the brag? now that's not cool.

You were trying to call me out for debating; I was just letting you know that that's appreciated around here. If it wasn't, then I wouldn't be the member of the month. There's a thread on here about Sting that's a five page debate; IT'S WHAT WE DO HERE. It's how we roll; it's the purpose of this forum. In this thread, I'm just doing the same thing we ALL do.

Wow. I'm not even gonna bother arguing my point here, because it's clear you're too stubborn to accept it.

I guess so; I just disagree that Cena (who was going to give up the WWE title when Punk was stripped of his title match) would accept the title after losing to Punk and Punk returning. If it were more than one week removed, I'd be more open to the idea but this writing is just lazy. This was obviously originally gonna go down a while later. Since they wanted to bring Punk back in sooner, they should have tweaked the angle. It seems silly to me to have two champions when the one they were gonna replace returned just a week later. I don't feel like that's a ridiculous idea....

I agree that the whole double champ is overkill. But the two of the do have legit reasons, Punk can say the whole I was never beaten for the title, Cena can say, i legit won a title after you were stripped of yours.

Right, but this is the part I really don't buy: I don't believe Cena would consider that a legit reason. Being the guy he's been for the last six years, he'd recognize Punk as the true champ and choose to beat Punk straight up before calling himself the champ. You guys can believe his title reign is legit, but I don't buy Cena just accepting this with the guy standing right in front of him with the belt he beat him for. It just doesn't come off to me as something Cena would do....

[Big Red Machine]

kiel's post doesn't answer anything. I understand his viewpoint, but that doesn't change what's wrong with this whole situation. John Cena's doing things out of character: why would he accept a title basically handed to him without any shame (he cleanly lost to Punk, was not featured in the WWE title tournament, and beat a guy who'd had five matches over a week while he'd only had two. Would John Cena just accept this opportunity? Or would he more likely EARN it? keep in mind what you all say about Cena ALL THE TIME. Furthermore, what about Rey's rematch? I didn't hear any plans of him getting one. I doubt they'd give him one now since they've already made the match for Summerslam. It all just seems unfair; the only way I'll understand this is if Cena becomes HHH's bitch).

And why couldn't HHH just cancel the title tournament? It was just ONE night! They didn't have the finals until the DAY PUNK RETURNED; why didn't they do the same thing they did during the 05 Draft? They already HAD a champion signed BEFORE the had the final match of the tournament. Then they give John Cena his return match THE SAME NIGHT? WHY? Why not wait til a week later like they did with the finals?

If TNA had done this, we'd all be all over their asses talking about how stupid it is. But bc it's the WWE, everyone's willing to let the crap slide. I'm not. It doesn't make much sense to me; it's like they're just trying to shoehorn Cena back into the fold and I don't see why they felt they should do it that way. Why doesn't Cena just say "Punk, you're champ. You beat me at MITB and I haven't beat you since...but I will at Summerslam" and hand his belt back over to HHH. They don't need to create this champion v. champion angle for this feud/angle; it's already a big deal....

You clearly haven't been paying close enough attention. Triple H said the Punk just showed up and handed him a signed contract right at the end of the Cena-Rey match. He couldn't cancel the tournament because there was no time in which to do so. As fr why they didn't wait a week to give Cena his rematch... they weren't originally going to wait for the finals, either, but Vince made them wait. There was no one in this case making them wait.

As for 2005 during that segment (I just rewatched it), Teddy Long said "Recently, I found out that there is no need for a new Smackdown champion." Depending on just how much time Teddy meant by "recently," one of the two following scenarios took place: "Recently" means "during the 6 person elimination match to crown the new champion," in which case the situation is exactly the same as it is here, or "recently" means "before the match" in which case Teddy Long lied to everyone, either maliciously, or (more kayfabe likely) to increase ratings.

Also, in that situation, Teddy Long was creating a new title, which he decided, in the end, wasn't necessary. With this situation, Cena is the recognized champion, as Vince stripped Punk of the belt. That Punk retained physical possession of the belt is irrelevant... he is not the recognized champion (much like the angle in TNA last April with Doug Williams and Kaz). Because Punk had physical possession of the belt, WWE made a new physical belt... but with the same lineage and recognition. Cena didn't just say "Punk, you are the champ" because until Triple H said so, WWE didn't recognize Punk as the champ.

Cena was also perfectly within character. He didn't come out and demand a title shot. It was given to him, and Rey agreed. I'm sure that if Rey wanted to wait a week, Cena would have been happy to wait. I'm sure you you were to ask Cena, he would say that he knows that Rey wasn't at 100%, and that after he beat Punk at Summer Slam, he will give Rey his rematch.

As for the TNA comparison- unlike most of TNA's stuff, this actually makes sense. Nothing is out of character, and no one is ignoring the blindingly obvious. They aren't trying to change or ignore established kayfabe canon, and there are no plotholes so big that you could fit a mountain of Takeshi Morishima clones in it.

I'm not complaining about Kayfabe here; I'm criticizing the choice to have two champions. Whoever's writing this angle just made it way more complicated than it needs to be and prolly too complicated get everyone over with the fans. Punk brought HHH a signed contract at the end of the show? That's the lamest thing I've ever heard and the dumbest explanation for a double champion type angle. I don't see why Punk wouldn't have just taken the contract to HHH BEFORE the finals of the tournament or AT LEAST before the Cena-Rey match so as to keep Cena from even having what little claim to the title he got from beating Rey; that's more like something he would do. Why would Punk not secure his supremacy before it could be challenged?

Your points about Teddy Long only prove mine: bc Batista was coming over, although there had been a winner of the match to crown the SD! champion, it became null and void bc they had a champ just sign. There are some slight differences in the circumstances, but this is still the same thing: There was a match/series of matches to crown a new champ and a TRUE champ came back. I think it's silly that in one instance there's just one champion and in the other there are two. But I can understand the argument that it's up to the GM/Boss's discretion.

Vince stripping Punk of the title is another thing I have a problem with; the angle would have generated WAAAY more buzz if it was still assumed that Punk was the recognized champ. They could have had the Firing of Cena and the "stripping" of CM Punk during the same segment (at the end of the show) and had HHH come out and interrupt it with the news. That way, Punk wouldn't be stripped and they could build it as a rematch for Summerslam. Have HHH become more and more frustrated having to appease Punk to get him to come back; put pressure on Cena to get the belt away from Punk; and have Punk take full advantage of and treat the McMahon's the same way he claims they treated talent from the past.

And like I said, I wouldn't mind what's going on right now so much if it happened AFTER SS at least. I understand that they had to get Punk back on tv, but if a guys only gone for a week, how can you strip him of the title? WWE knew Punk had resigned (I'm talking non-kayfabe here), why rush this angle an NOT change it so it's more believable?

I understand you all disagreeing with me, but I just don't believe what they're trying to sell me. IMO, Cena wouldn't accept the title unless he beat Punk for it nor that he would accept a match against an already tired Rey (and if you're gonna suggest that perhaps Cena was spose to get his rematch that night anyway, let me remind you that HHH announced that match in the middle of that show. Kayfabe there WASN'T gonna be a Cena rematch that night); I don't believe Punk would sign a contract AFTER MITB that didn't specify that he be THE champion (his whole point in getting the title was to have the power as top guy; why would he wait around and risk sharing it?); and I don't believe HHH in his role at all (he's talking about being fair and he puts Rey in a match with the former WWE champion the same night he fought another former champ? Why would he do that unless he was upset with Rey or favored Cena, neither of which we're spose to believe at this point). I don't know how I'm spose to take any of this.

I am intrigued to see who's gonna come out of this as the heel(s) and face(s), cuz right now any of them could turn at any moment. With the exception of the promos, the last two weeks of RAW just seem pointless; we're pretty much right where we were at the end of MITB....

I don't think that "getting everyone over with the fans is going to be a problem here. The three main epeople involved are Triple H, John Cena, and CM Punk.

Punk clearly had his reasons. My assumption (this is all speculation, now), is that Punk thought long and hard for a week, and came to the conclusion late Monday afternoon that if WWE had a new champion, he would lose his stroke, and thus would not be able to accomplish his goals. So Punk hopped in his car even before Raw started and made the approximately (according to Google maps) three and a half hour drive from Chicago to indy, getting there during the title match, and signed his contract, and then went on.

The major difference between SD in 2005 and now is that Batista wasn't the "rightful" SD champ returning home. He was a new guy who happened to have a world title already as recognized by the company, eliminating the need for a new SD World Title.

I agree that it would have been better to have Triple H stop them from stripping Punk of the title (I would have actually had him come out at the beginning of the Raw where Cena won and had him say that he was calling the title match off because he thought he might be able to bring Punk back (I'll get to a fantasy booking scenario some time in the next few days in which Punk doesn't come back for a while, yet they still don't crown a replacement champ).

In terms of kayfavbe believability, it makes the most sense that WWE would strip Punk of the title and crown their own new champ ASAP (this will both give WWE a champ to bill on shows and will make forgetting about Punk a little bit easier).

Cena's rematch was the same generic, automatic rematch clause that all champions have. As for Triple H, he asked Rey. Rey could have said no, but he didn't. I don't think that Triple H kayfabe cares who the champ is, as long as their is one.

[badnewzxl]

The major difference between SD in 2005 and now is that Batista wasn't the "rightful" SD champ returning home. He was a new guy who happened to have a world title already as recognized by the company, eliminating the need for a new SD World Title.

And this is exactly why I feel it makes little sense. HHH said at ComicCon that if Punk came back, he'd be champ. Why doesn't that eliminate the need for a new WWE champ? Why doesn't it make the tournament null in the same way that SD! match was made null when Batista came over? That's what I'm having a problem with....

[Big Red Machine]

The major difference between SD in 2005 and now is that Batista wasn't the "rightful" SD champ returning home. He was a new guy who happened to have a world title already as recognized by the company, eliminating the need for a new SD World Title.

And this is exactly why I feel it makes little sense. HHH said at ComicCon that if Punk came back, he'd be champ. Why doesn't that eliminate the need for a new WWE champ? Why doesn't it make the tournament null in the same way that SD! match was made null when Batista came over? That's what I'm having a problem with....

When Triple H said that, there was no WWE champ (since Punk was stripped of the belt, but no champ had been crowned). Once they have one, the offer would have expired (that is how I read it, anyway). As for why not make the tournament null and void: because WWE CHAMPION CM PUNK VS. WWE CHAMPION JOHN CENA 1-ON-1 TO DETERMINE WHO THE TRUE WWE CHAMPION IS!" is a great way to sell Summer Slam. We can never forget that making money is a promotion's kayfabe goal as well as its legit goal.

[badnewzxl]

The major difference between SD in 2005 and now is that Batista wasn't the "rightful" SD champ returning home. He was a new guy who happened to have a world title already as recognized by the company, eliminating the need for a new SD World Title.

And this is exactly why I feel it makes little sense. HHH said at ComicCon that if Punk came back, he'd be champ. Why doesn't that eliminate the need for a new WWE champ? Why doesn't it make the tournament null in the same way that SD! match was made null when Batista came over? That's what I'm having a problem with....

When Triple H said that, there was no WWE champ (since Punk was stripped of the belt, but no champ had been crowned). Once they have one, the offer would have expired (that is how I read it, anyway). As for why not make the tournament null and void: because WWE CHAMPION CM PUNK VS. WWE CHAMPION JOHN CENA 1-ON-1 TO DETERMINE WHO THE TRUE WWE CHAMPION IS!" is a great way to sell Summer Slam. We can never forget that making money is a promotion's kayfabe goal as well as its legit goal.

you, see, I think that's an overkill. that's my problem with it. having a rematch of the MOTY is already enough to sell SS imo

[Big Red Machine]

When Triple H said that, there was no WWE champ (since Punk was stripped of the belt, but no champ had been crowned). Once they have one, the offer would have expired (that is how I read it, anyway). As for why not make the tournament null and void: because WWE CHAMPION CM PUNK VS. WWE CHAMPION JOHN CENA 1-ON-1 TO DETERMINE WHO THE TRUE WWE CHAMPION IS!" is a great way to sell Summer Slam. We can never forget that making money is a promotion's kayfabe goal as well as its legit goal.

you, see, I think that's an overkill. that's my problem with it. having a rematch of the MOTY is already enough to sell SS imo

It seems a bit unnecessary to sell the PPV but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't do it if it fits the angle.

[badnewzxl]

When Triple H said that, there was no WWE champ (since Punk was stripped of the belt, but no champ had been crowned). Once they have one, the offer would have expired (that is how I read it, anyway). As for why not make the tournament null and void: because WWE CHAMPION CM PUNK VS. WWE CHAMPION JOHN CENA 1-ON-1 TO DETERMINE WHO THE TRUE WWE CHAMPION IS!" is a great way to sell Summer Slam. We can never forget that making money is a promotion's kayfabe goal as well as its legit goal.

you, see, I think that's an overkill. that's my problem with it. having a rematch of the MOTY is already enough to sell SS imo

It seems a bit unnecessary to sell the PPV but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't do it if it fits the angle.

I can live with that.

[NWK]

I just wanna say, this angle is engineered so that we as wrestling fans talk about it, debate about it, etc. Proof that, no matter how you look at it, this is a sweet angle.