Honestly, I thought of John Cena after reading a specific sentence from his comments. There was a claim that Cena made that bothered me during his contract signing with Orton. That is, he'd said that he'd earned the World Heavyweight title... Really? Is that right? So you weren't put in a World Heavyweight championship match at the Hell In The Cell PPV as your first match back from surgery. Predictably, you'd won the match. I contend that Mr. McMahon and the WWE writers gave you the World Heavyweight title to take it off of Del Rio and, presumably, help to improve the Smackdown ratings. Wait. Does Cena even appear on Smackdown? I rarely watch it. Funny, I would've guessed that Cena would've challenged Orton for the WWE title once he was healthy. I mean, Triple H did help Orton and screw your good friend Bryan. Why not pickup from where you'd left off from losing the WWE title to Bryan? Why not involve Cena in the Orton versus Bryan storyline? I try to look at the bigger picture, but the World Heavyweight championship match at the Hell In The Cell PPV seem random after it was announced.
Cena said, "Let's cut to the chase. You were given that, I earned this..."
No, you were given your title too. I know that he meant it in the context of the storyline. But you sound like a hypocrite... Here's where I concur with Cornette. In my opinion, Cena doesn't need either championship. He could be like the Rock and Austin and The Undertaker in that sense. It doesn't matter. If you're the top face or heel in the company, you're already over with the fans. However, Cena needs the main title like Batman needs his cowl. So Cena isn't like the aforementioned stars. He dislikes being plain, ordinary. He or Mr. McMahon believes he must have jimmies or sprinkles. Moreover, a prime example of why it's easy to not buy into what Cena's saying is he's always saying what your fans want to hear or expect you to say as a superhero. Or is it a role model? It's cliche. What he's really doing is pandering... It comes off insincere to me. The truth is, nobody earns anything in wrestling as far as championships. It's a storyline plain and simple. A championship's put on you if they [the WWE] can market you and you make the company more money and help to maintain a certain ratings number. Also known as, being able to talk the talk. Admittedly, Cena does this well. He sells the company's brand name and his character's brand name. Conversely, he wasn't a fan of the "Cena Sucks" t-shirts. Actually, he helped to sell those by his own existence. But don't sell me this company man routine. It's phony as... Never mind. I don't want to rouse up the Cena police and hear their baby talk. If this isn't you, then I'm not referring you. Typically, they will say, you're a "Hater." Or, the new one is, you're "Jelly."
I digress. I know a lot of people from the wrestling business would disagree about the opinions of Cornette because they dislike him or believe that he has an agenda. But he's straightforward and insightful. I like to listen to what he has to say on certain topics at least. I mean, the comment about Bret Hart's a valid point. That is to say, when you're a top tier wrestler in the wrestling business, one can easily lose sight of where you'd came from and where you're at. If you aren't a champion, you can become a champion. If you're a champion, you can lose that championship next month.
I don't always think that having a championship serves as a prop for you. Especially, when you're already over with the fans like Dean Ambrose, for example. He's the United States Champion. On the other hand, you might as well not be the title holder if your title's defended infrequently. That's a problem in the wrestling business as well. The idle championship. The irrelevant championship. Oh, I didn't even know who the current title holder was. Exactly. But I don't think today's fans necessarily want another Hulk Hogan. A champion who seemingly never loses a title match. But that would make for an excellent debate. Do you prefer to see the main champion have a long title reign, or have multiple title reigns after each defeat? Either way the outcome will be predictable. Then I prefer the old school argument. You win once, or what have you, and hold the title for a long time like Demolition. The intrigue comes from the opponents. Obviously, the drawback is, your match is only as good as your opponent. If he looks weak, you look bad and the match is a disaster. Well, unless you're The Undertaker of course. Yes. I'm looking at you Ultimate Warrior.
"Well now the problem is, the title instead of being viewed as the prize in sports, the titles have been used as props. Oh lets switch the belt onto this guy or that guy, oh let the guy cash in a briefcase and cover the dead guy that's just been beaten up. It's just been turned into a prop, it's been devalued, it's been prostituted. Besides that, now that everyone pretty much knows pro wrestling is choreographed, pre-determined, whatever you wanna call it, everyone knows you're not really the champion and someone just awards you it.
"The only thing that ever annoyed me about the Bret Hart screwjob in Montreal is Bret called the newspapers in Montreal to tell them he's been screwed and hadn't really lost the title. Well he didn't call them when he won the thing and say, 'oh I didn't really win it, someone just gave it to me.' Now, It's a shiny belt that people can buy a replica of and it's another tool in our toolkit that we've devalued to the point where it doesn't make us any money anymore and it's sad."