When CM Punk beat John Cena for the title last year, some people acted like this was the first time John Cena had ever lost the WWE Championship. CM Punk went on to lose the title, but he then regained it. He has now held it for almost a year. As far as Cena goes, that means he has not held the title for over a year. Unheard of? Just like John Cena losing the title to CM Punk last year was not the first time that happened, John Cena not holding the title for over a year has happened before.
Go back to 2007. Cena was having a title reign that lasted over a year. It ended when he had to vacate it due to injury. About a year after Cena dropped it, he suffered another injury. When he returned from that injury, he won the World's Heavyweight Championship from Chris Jericho. He ended up not holding a World title for over a year. Aside from the injuries keeping him away, Cena did feud for the title, have a brief run with the tag titles, feud with JBL for a few months, and have a brief feud with Batista. Meanwhile, the World Champions on Raw during this time included Randy Orton, Triple H, CM Punk, Batista, and Chris Jericho. On some nights, John Cena's feuds still trumped title feuds. He never really stopped being the centerpiece of the company. They just gave him a brief rest from title matters.
Compare 2007/08 to 2011/12. He is once again going a year without a title. Despite that, he has often trumped CM Punk's title feuds over the past year. Big difference between this period and the previous period, to me, is the variety of World Champions you have had during Cena's drought. You had 5 different guys trading around the WWE Championship or World's Heavyweight Championship in the previous period. In the current one, all you have is a brief run for Alberto Del Rio and Punk's long run. Couldn't some people argue that 2008's title scene was fresher? No Cena. Various guys were holding the title. And yet, people still act like what's going on now has never happened before in any way since Cena became centerpiece. Don't get me wrong, you can still argue things are stale and Cena is overpushed, but there are some criticisms people come up with that are really not true. Cena hasn't always been holding the title prior to Punk "saving" the WWE. He's had a 1-year drought before.
It made me think about Trish Stratus and her centerpiece run. Trish is obviously the greatest centerpiece the diva division ever produced. Remember how she got her first four reigns. She won the vacated title, lost it to Jazz, won it from Jazz, lost it to Molly Holly, won it from Molly Holly, lost it to Victoria, won it from Victoria, and lost it to Jazz. That is how she won 4 title reigns in about 2 years. I wasn't an Internet wrestling fan back then, but I wondered if people complained about that. Regardless, after losing the title to Jazz for the second time, Trish didn't regain the title again until the following year. Meanwhile, Trish got angles involving Lita, Chris Jericho, and Christian. The women who did hold the title during that time included Jazz, Gail Kim, Molly Holly, and Victoria. Fresh. Four credible jobbers held the title. You look at the five guys who held the World title on Raw during Cena's first year away from the title. All are legends. People can debate whether what I am about to say is true for Batista, but all those guys will one day be in the WWE Hall of Fame. Can you say those kind of things for the four women who held the Women's Championship during Trish's break from the title? You can say it, but who would really buy it? Point is, giving John Cena a break from the title is nothing unheard of. It has even happened in the diva division with the centerpiece there. A break from the title doesn't mean you stop being the centerpiece. More than likely, they will eventually regain it. Trish went on to win 3 more title reigns. Cena has won about triple that number since his first drought.
Who wins at Survivor Series? If they were going to put the title on Ryback, Hell in a Cell would have been the place to do it. If they do not put the title on Cena, then the whole switch they made in their plans would have been stupid. You put John Cena in a title match just so CM Punk can retain the title, instead of following through with your original Survivor Series plans for Punk and Mick Foley? The sloppiness would have been for nothing. I know the popular response is Cena being in the title match is a draw. Well, if Cena is such a draw, shouldn't the fact that he was going to end up on the card facing Dolph Ziggler as part of an elaborate storyline involving Vickie Guerrero and AJ Lee still draw? It would make it worth it if this was all done to get the title on Cena. If not, what a waste. And keep in mind, Cena's title drought in 2008 ended with him winning the title at Survivor Series. Will the same thing happen?
No comments:
Post a Comment