Anyone who has previously read my column (my condolences to the two of you) must already be aware that I pride myself in my objectivity. In the past I have had no difficulty in praising people that I personally don’t find entertaining (describing Hogan as the most important WWE champion of all time seems as good an example as you’ll find) or identifying what I consider to be substandard performance in those that I usually exalt (take your pick from any number of rambling promos from Vince whom I regard as the best talker in WWE history). I will always look for the elusive third way, the sideways take that doesn’t denote allegiance to one stance or the other but holds up a mirror of logic for people to review their own opinions and either reaffirm or reconsider. It doesn’t make me better, but hopefully it makes me different. Conceited megalomania aside, the reason why I am claiming this is because for once I have decided to leave my objectivity in its box and state my personal opinions on a topic that I have been intentionally ignoring for quite some time, even though I have engaged in discussion about it on several occasions. Far be it for me to quote a bad 80’s BBC sitcom but “listen carefully, I will say this only once”.
During the latter months of 2005, I had no problem in stating that John Cena was the worst wrestler to be WWE champion in many years. Granted, the WWE weren’t presenting him as a fluid mat technician so the unfavourable comparisons to Kurt Angle at the time were accurate, if a little superfluous, but the real situation arose because he was being designated as a brawler. More than being about using fists instead of throws and holds, the application of being a brawler should be founded in the passion for the fight and Cena appeared to have none. His punches and stomps were weaker than those seen in the women’s division and he barely broke out of jogging speed, something that slowed his matches down to a crawl unless he was fighting someone from the cruiserweight division that could do all the running for him. But as 2006 progressed and turned into 2007 it was noticeable that he had increased his workrate and upped his speed to the point where he was wrestling in the match of the night on a regular basis, regardless of whether that personal improvement was the cause of this appearance of excellence or not. The problem with trying to work out of a ‘no-win’ situation is that the mere attempt to create a resolution draws condemnation, even if the reaction is contradictory. Take Cena’s move-set. The separate decisions to imbue him with a basic power-move (FU), a submission hold (STFU) a high-flying manoeuvre (top rope leg-drop) and a patented ‘pose’ move (5-knuckle shuffle) were all met with howls of derision based solely on the strength of his unpopularity. In truth, the area where Cena’s ring skills let him down is his inability to live in the moment. The preparation and concentration required to allow Cena to perform at a higher level than previously expected means that his brain has already moved on to the next component, leaving him functioning at a diminished capacity and perpetually seeming like he’s just not putting his all into every single moment. History has demonstrated that a deliberate, basic style is not an obstruction to ascension up the WWE ladder of success and, as long as diversity is the rule rather than the exception, I have no problem with getting my fix of fast, focussed athleticism elsewhere on the card, even if that means under the main event.
Although a timely reminder wasn’t required, the reaction Cena got from the Milan crowd on Raw this week highlighted the issues the WWE is having getting him over as a universally applauded babyface. But then even HBK, who benefited from the Italian fans’ scorn, could tell you a few things about being booed as the lead ‘good guy’ in the WWE, judging by his Survivor Series 1996 match against Sycho Sid. One of the main drawbacks of the gimmick Cena currently utilises is that it doesn’t play to the heel/face divide, especially where fans are concerned. As a heel, he had to be arrogant, selfish and dismissive, which usually put him in the good grace of a predominantly anti-hero audience as created by Stone Cold’s face push in the late 90’s. Back in Aug/Sep 2003, whilst going up against Undertaker and then Eddie Guerrero who were both way over with the Smackdown crowd, management were testing the water to see if WWE fans were willing to accept Cena as a face in his ‘thuganomics’ character and the signs looked positive (although that could have just been a favourable reaction to Stephanie’s big ass getting slapped). But unlike Austin, whose attitude was 70% under the surface so he could keep quiet and let the fans associate with him, Cena needed to change the direction of his rhetoric to appeal to a wider fanbase and that left him open to accusations of pandering for support. And that’s the cardinal sin in a society that seems to rate aloofness as the foundation of cool. It was the same with The Rock. Align himself with the McMahons or act like a smug prick in his feud with Bill Goldberg and the fans couldn’t get enough of him. Yet start leaving a gap for the millions (“and millions”) of The Rock’s fans to chant along and the cracks in his following soon surfaced. This was best demonstrated during the recent build up to Cena’s Wrestlemania 23 match with HBK. The more he told Michaels that he “had his back” the more the arena fans wanted Michaels to superkick his head off his shoulders. If you wanted an indication of whether the wrestling world is ready to play “follow the leader” and support a role model in the mould of Hulkamania again yet, I guess that would suggest otherwise.
As champion, Cena is something of an enigma. One of the duties associated with being champion, especially the one aligned with the Raw brand, is to carry the bulk of the company and I believe he is doing a decent job of that. It is difficult for me to pointedly justify his prolonged championship reign because I believe imbroglio would have been an equally valid environment for the belt. But as with most things, the reason to do something is only quantified by undoing it and the stabilising effect Cena’s lengthy run has had on the championship will only come to fruition based on how, when and to whom he loses the title. The aspect where Cena fails as title-holder is in being able to elevate wrestlers from the mid-card into the main event circle and the number one contendership spot. Out of the Monday night challengers he has amassed over the last two years Jericho, Angle, RVD, HHH and HBK were already established upper-card stars fed to Cena to boost his title legacy. Only Edge, Randy Orton and Umaga have risen out of the pack on Cena’s watch and you can take your pick from a combination of booking apathy, performer attitude or audience resistance that has meant none of these three guys look set to replace Cena as figurehead in the immediate future. A reasonable rebuttal to that argument could be that it’s not the champion’s fault if his challengers aren’t given the ball or fail to run with it but the bottom line is that, as the man who finishes the card and more than usually stands there with the belt raised above his head as the show closes, he ultimately takes the hit for the side. One of the comments frequently made about Ric Flair during his NWA title days was that he could “draw money and wrestle a 5-star match with a broom”. An exaggeration maybe, but certainly above what Cena’s notoriety can manage at this time.
For me, the biggest problem has always been that, in defending the WWE’s reliance on sports entertainment, I have been required to defend Cena in opposition to people who believe in the process but don’t like his veneer. I personally don’t care that he comes across as fake or executes the majority of his moves in slow motion because, in relation to Cena’s storylines, the bookers are still showing that they give a crap about the product and that’s not something they’re currently showing up and down the card. I know this isn’t a fashionable point of view but there is a direct correlation between the success of the WWE and a roster replete with team players. In an ideal world the behind the scenes staff would be the foundation of the output and the wrestlers would be the unpredictable decorative finish but the WWE is currently in a rebuilding era and it simply doesn’t have an Austin or a Rock to be the fiery spark of creativity it is screaming out for. So management goes back to basics, simplifies the tales and relies on performers that are there for the long run, not ones that might be released within a year for being unprofessional or difficult. The groundwork of good conduct and reward that Cena is laying now should benefit guys like Carlito and Orton over the next ten years, assuming they can stop acting like spoilt children long enough to not get fired. I guess the best way to conclude this is to summarise my points, so at least my beliefs will be clear and I shouldn’t have to say them again. In my opinion, John Cena is a hardworking, entertaining wrestler with average ability, a gimmick that indirectly provokes a response and is currently being used in a way that benefits the WWE but stymies the development of his character. You can infer from that what you like.
Lee
Copyright © 2005; TheWrestlingVoice.com & Douglas Nunnally.
All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer & Privacy Statement
| What Did You Think About WWE Backlash 2008? |
|
|