Rock vs Cena III next year

UCJOE

I have a lot of business with the Chinese
Mar 7, 2009
12,813
838
293
NJ
#1
Rock did an interview this week where he said there was a 3 year plan & the person he wanted to work with at Mania was Cena

So if Cena wins this year, that will make it 1-1
Rock is confirmed for next years Mania & the latest from Meltzer is they were trying for Rock/Brock at SS (they had no idea so many were pushing for that)

Do we get Rock/Cena III?

I wouldn't doubt it
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,222
12,972
438
Atlanta, GA
#2
Fucking enough. This stupid storyline officially kicked off at WrestleMania XXVII in 2011 and it has sucked every week since.
 

UCJOE

I have a lot of business with the Chinese
Mar 7, 2009
12,813
838
293
NJ
#3
Fucking enough. This stupid storyline officially kicked off at WrestleMania XXVII in 2011 and it has sucked every week since.
I actually liked Rock being involved in The Miz/Cena angle & last year wasn't that bad
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,222
12,972
438
Atlanta, GA
#4
I actually liked Rock being involved in The Miz/Cena angle
What? That was one of the worst things about that WrestleMania (which was already horrible).

Speaking of WrestleMania XXVII, I just finished reading and re-reading a few reviews of it and it stills pisses me off how badly it was booked. The time management was the fucking worst. That show was abusively bad.
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,912
15,302
303
#5
It had something like like 105 minutes of bell to bell action on a 4 hour show. WM 27 is the worst WM of the past 10 years. It is awful.

Rock/Cena ONCE IN A LIFETIME: THIRD TIMES THE CHARM! can officially eat a dick. I don't even want to see this rematch.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,222
12,972
438
Atlanta, GA
#6
It had something like like 105 minutes of bell to bell action on a 4 hour show. WM 27 is the worst WM of the past 10 years. It is awful.
WWE should reimburse the city of Atlanta for presenting a truly awful WrestleMania.
Rock/Cena ONCE IN A LIFETIME: THIRD TIMES THE CHARM! can officially eat a dick. I don't even want to see this rematch.
I hope it fucking bombs.
 
Feb 5, 2003
5,561
926
753
With a stranger
#7
Rock did an interview this week where he said there was a 3 year plan & the person he wanted to work with at Mania was Cena

So if Cena wins this year, that will make it 1-1
Rock is confirmed for next years Mania & the latest from Meltzer is they were trying for Rock/Brock at SS (they had no idea so many were pushing for that)

Do we get Rock/Cena III?

I wouldn't doubt it
What's the point of that? To let the Rock pass the torch to Cena twice? They had the good sense to not do HBK/Taker or HHH/Taker 3 years in a row and those matches were actually great, but they're actually considering subjecting us to this for a 3rd time. That's the type of short-sightedness that has led to boring storylines, Cena's character losing any edge it once had, and nobody new being given a shot at the top for more than a blink of the eye unless it's against Cena. The ratings and PPV buyrates should indicate to them that they might want to mix things up a little bit.
 

Steam

Registered User
May 18, 2003
17,242
295
518
#9
They did Austin/Rock at 15, 17, and 19. They probably would have done it at 16 if Austin wasn't hurt. So I fail to see the big deal in doing Rock/Cena three times, regardless of the fact that its three years in a row. If Rock is going to wrestle, who else is "worthy" of facing him? He already did two PPVs with Punk and will probably face Lesnar (again) at some point this year. Who else do they have? Do another match with Triple H or Jericho to relive the glory days? All of the other "knocking on the door" guys have a lot of work to do in order to be on that level. While that may be in a problem in booking it still doesn't mean that those guys are worthy of a main-event match or a match against Rock. This isn't Wrestlemania 20, Rock isn't coming back to not headline.

The ratings and PPV buyrates should indicate to them that they might want to mix things up a little bit.
What like the buyrates when Ryback was in the main event? Wrestlemania did pretty well last year and will do pretty well again this year. Rock/Cena is the sort of match that gets attention from the mainstream and as much as people abhor that, its what they need to do.

I enjoyed the first Rock/Cena match. The energy in the stadium was great and the fact that you didn't really know who was going to win added to the atmosphere. It does suck that we pretty much know Cena will win (I'd say its even more guaranteed with the prospect of a third match) but I'm still anticipating a good match.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,222
12,972
438
Atlanta, GA
#10
They did Austin/Rock at 15, 17, and 19. They probably would have done it at 16 if Austin wasn't hurt. So I fail to see the big deal in doing Rock/Cena three times, regardless of the fact that its three years in a row.
Here's the problem; WWE didn't announce a year in advance what the main event of those WrestleManias was going to be. The feuds were organic and built towards 'Mania.
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,912
15,302
303
#11
Here's the problem; WWE didn't announce a year in advance what the main event of those WrestleManias was going to be. The feuds were organic and built towards 'Mania.
It was also Austin/Rock in their primes or close to it and WM 17 and WM 19 are top tier WMs. If somebody wants to argue for 19 as the best WM, they'd have lots of company.

Cena/Rock half an hour without a stipulation will be a real downer. It isn't even gonna touch the Punk/Cena matches at PPVs.
It'll probably look like ass in comparison to Punk/Cena Contendership on t.v. I can't really imagine Rock having better matches than what he had with Punk.
The Rock looks like he regressed in the ring. He gets blown up sub 10 minutes in slow paced matches and really had to ride rest holds and rest spots to the outside in
the Punk matches.
 

UCJOE

I have a lot of business with the Chinese
Mar 7, 2009
12,813
838
293
NJ
#12
Also Rock/SCSA was different each time & a different story
Rock/Cena is the exact same thing so far
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,222
12,972
438
Atlanta, GA
#13
Also Rock/SCSA was different each time & a different story
Rock/Cena is the exact same thing so far
The actual build is different too. Rock/Austin was an intensely escalating war between two people who wanted to be the WWF Champion. Rock/Cena has been a schoolyard argument between two bickering, immature children. Rock/Cena has also had a frightening amount of douchey pandering and groveling for audience approval, whereas Rock/Austin controlled its audience.
 
Last edited:

UCJOE

I have a lot of business with the Chinese
Mar 7, 2009
12,813
838
293
NJ
#14
The actual build is different too. Rock/Austin was an intensely escalating war between two people who wanted to be the WWF Champion. Rock/Cena has been a schoolyard argument between two bickering, immature children. Rock/Cena has also had a frightening amount of douchey pandering and groveling for audience approval. Rock and Austin controlled its audience.
That was my point
You articulated it better
:action-sm
 

Steam

Registered User
May 18, 2003
17,242
295
518
#15
Here's the problem; WWE didn't announce a year in advance what the main event of those WrestleManias was going to be. The feuds were organic and built towards 'Mania.
Why does that matter? The execution in getting there may have been lacking but the idea to announce it ahead of time I thought was solid. They had the built-in feud due to Cena's comments and when Rock came back to guest host Mania they went in with that. That was the best way to bring back Rock and build up the idea of a mega-match between one of the best of the prior era against the best of the current era. Oh yeah, the guy who was one of the best of the prior era is also currently a movie star. That's the match people want to see. In an era where Mania main events aren't known until a month prior, it was a nice change of pace.

Also Rock/SCSA was different each time & a different story
Rock/Cena is the exact same thing so far
Rock/Cena is really nothing so far. They had to waste time burning off the Punk angle as they waited for the waffling of Taker. Now they can get to setting the stage for Rock/Cena II. The problem is Rock won't be at all the Raws leading up to Mania and there isn't much time to get to anything so you are right, it probably will be a rehash of what they have done already.

The actual build is different too. Rock/Austin was an intensely escalating war between two people who wanted to be the WWF Champion. Rock/Cena has been a schoolyard argument between two bickering, immature children. Rock/Cena has also had a frightening amount of douchey pandering and groveling for audience approval, whereas Rock/Austin controlled its audience.
That's because they were both full-time wrestlers still working their way up the ladder. Rock and Cena aren't at that stage of their careers right now. Lets give it a few weeks and see what Cena can do with this match because lets face it, its on him to make something out of it. But I still have faith.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,222
12,972
438
Atlanta, GA
#16
Why does that matter?
A few reasons.

1. There's no excitement in watching the top tier. Since the main event real estate is already sold in a year in advance, there's no chance of a younger talent rising to that spot. It already belongs to a part-timer and a stale character who has been rammed down our throats in that spot for 8 years. Why bother watching next year's Royal Rumble match if you know today who will be in the main event wrestling for the WWE title at WrestleMania XXX?

2. The Rock will retain his spot in a role he has not delivered in. He was handed a role that other, better wrestlers worked for and earned. A year later, his work has only regressed, yet the WWE is planning on investing another full year of main events in him.

3. It's the culmination of the WWE's rehash rematch kick. We've seen this match before. This is something I feared would happen after they started doing repeat Undertaker matches. The build to the second Undertaker/Triple H match wasn't exciting to watch either -- except when Undertaker showed up wearing a wig.
 

Steam

Registered User
May 18, 2003
17,242
295
518
#17
A few reasons.

1. There's no excitement in watching the top tier. Since the main event real estate is already sold in a year in advance, there's no chance of a younger talent rising to that spot. It already belongs to a part-timer and a stale character who has been rammed down our throats in that spot for 8 years. Why bother watching next year's Royal Rumble match if you know today who will be in the main event wrestling for the WWE title at WrestleMania XXX?
You don't necessarily know that a potential third match would be for the title. If Cena wins this year, which is expected, the build up to next year will be for the fact that they are now 1-1 and need to have a third match to determine the better man. You don't really the belt for that. I guess you technically didn't need the belt for the rematch but outside of Cena being a little bitch and begging for a rematch how else would we get there? Plus, that would be a repeat of Triple H/Undertaker from last year.

You are angry because you know the participants in one match of an event that is taking place a year from now? Who cares? There are going to be other matches that you don't know the participants of. Your precious "younger talent" can be a part of one of those and keep working their way up the ladder. Hell, they tried to rush Miz to "main event status" and what happened there? How's he doing now?


2. The Rock will retain his spot in a role he has not delivered in. He was handed a role that other, better wrestlers worked for and earned. A year later, his work has only regressed, yet the WWE is planning on investing another full year of main events in him.
If the bottom line was workrate I'd agree with you. His match with Punk at the Rumble was awful. However, he still gets people talking about the WWE. He still draws in mainstream attention. Maybe someone who liked The Rock growing up will see that he's wrestling again and watch it and in turn his kid becomes a wrestling fan. There is much more chance of future growth of the product with The Rock wrestling than if they gave the spot to say, Dolph Ziggler.

And he's "earned" it, even in storyline logic. He came back and wrestled the top guy of the era in the main event of Wrestlemania and won. Why shouldn't he get a title shot? There is no need for him to work his way back through the ranks. He's one of the biggest stars in the history of pro wrestling. Fuck, Hogan came back to WWF and LOST to Rock at Wrestlemania and still got a title shot next.


3. It's the culmination of the WWE's rehash rematch kick. We've seen this match before. This is something I feared would happen after they started doing repeat Undertaker matches. The build to the second Undertaker/Triple H match wasn't exciting to watch either -- except when Undertaker showed up wearing a wig.
Valid point. But that's on the writers to make the storyline of "why" more appealing and on Rock and Cena to make it fresh. Let's wait to see where it goes before we judge.
 
Feb 5, 2003
5,561
926
753
With a stranger
#18
The reason doing Austin/Rock 3 times in 4 years is different is this: people weren't sick of Austin and the Rock. Cena is the company's top face and he's often booed by more than half the live crowd and ratings and buyrates have dropped. Obviously Ryback isn't the answer, but pretty much anyone other than Vince could've told you that. They had a new face capable of helping to turn things around but they had to turn him heel and have him look weak against Cena despite being the champion, resulting in Cena still being the only guy allowed on the top of the mountain after all these years. This whole Rock/Cena thing feels forced now. Last year was fine. They'd never faced each other and it made for a great draw. This year required booking gymnastics to get there when the more logical route would've been Rock/Punk at WM instead of at the Rumble. Why couldn't the Rock enter the Rumble and win then go on to face Punk for the title? It would've been a great way to build up someone other than Cena. Instead we just get more of the same thing.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,222
12,972
438
Atlanta, GA
#19
If Cena wins this year, which is expected, the build up to next year will be for the fact that they are now 1-1 and need to have a third match to determine the better man.
Boring. I want to see a match I haven't seen before.
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,912
15,302
303
#20
Punk/Anybody Who Can Work will have the most interesting build and satisfying payoff. Punk/Cena is basically the best match this company can do.

You feel like it is "ran into the ground!" until they put on a half hour clinic and you see Cena breaking himself in half to prove he's got the chops instead
of selling and sleeping on the ground for 15 minutes of a 20 minute match.

Cena/Rock is gonna be a rest hold, spot to the outside WILL HE MAKE THE COUNT OUT! snoozer. It'll be even worse than the first match, which despite more than a full year of build was
a 3/5 at best. There is no kayfabe reason to have The Rock win the first one, inexplicably get a title shot, win clean over a 400 day champ, twice only to lose to Cena clean twice in matches that aren't going to be any good. The only reason to book like this is laziness and Vince thinks it will make him money.

WM 30 should be built around a Punk/Cena confrontation with a stipulation like Street Fight or I Quit. A high stakes, hardcore blowoff in the main event on the grandest stage.
Rock/Cena III at 'Mania 30 would be a debacle.

I will not spend a penny on Rock/Cena III at 'Mania 30. I am a thieving bitch but I always go in for money on 'Mania.
 

Steam

Registered User
May 18, 2003
17,242
295
518
#21
The reason doing Austin/Rock 3 times in 4 years is different is this: people weren't sick of Austin and the Rock. Cena is the company's top face and he's often booed by more than half the live crowd and ratings and buyrates have dropped. Obviously Ryback isn't the answer, but pretty much anyone other than Vince could've told you that. They had a new face capable of helping to turn things around but they had to turn him heel and have him look weak against Cena despite being the champion, resulting in Cena still being the only guy allowed on the top of the mountain after all these years. This whole Rock/Cena thing feels forced now. Last year was fine. They'd never faced each other and it made for a great draw. This year required booking gymnastics to get there when the more logical route would've been Rock/Punk at WM instead of at the Rumble. Why couldn't the Rock enter the Rumble and win then go on to face Punk for the title? It would've been a great way to build up someone other than Cena. Instead we just get more of the same thing.
Capable of helping turning things around? Make him look weak? Stop it. What was Punk as a face really doing? His feud against Jericho that should have been epic floundered. I agree that the placement of the matches was atrocious (I like the idea of the title being given top billing) but that wasn't the only thing to blame. Plus, how can you imply that Punk turning heel is a bad thing? He's been great since turning. Much more so than being some douche who keeping pining for ice cream bars.

Why should Rock have to work his way through the ranks again or win the Rumble? He's a multi-time former champ, a movie star, and he beat the top guy of the decade. He deserves a shot at the title. And you got two months of Rock/Punk, why does it matter when it happens? That transitioned to Rock/Cena with the added stipulation that its for the title. There was no other (storyline) reason for Rock to face Cena again after beating him, so they had it be for the title. Simple.

But by all means, keep insinuating that Rock and Cena are responsible for the ratings rapidly declining last fall instead of any of the other plethora of reasons for that happening.


Boring. I want to see a match I haven't seen before.
John Cena vs. Fandango. Boom. There's your main event.

Punk/Anybody Who Can Work will have the most interesting build and satisfying payoff. Punk/Cena is basically the best match this company can do.

You feel like it is "ran into the ground!" until they put on a half hour clinic and you see Cena breaking himself in half to prove he's got the chops instead
of selling and sleeping on the ground for 15 minutes of a 20 minute match.

Cena/Rock is gonna be a rest hold, spot to the outside WILL HE MAKE THE COUNT OUT! snoozer. It'll be even worse than the first match, which despite more than a full year of build was
a 3/5 at best. There is no kayfabe reason to have The Rock win the first one, inexplicably get a title shot, win clean over a 400 day champ, twice only to lose to Cena clean twice in matches that aren't going to be any good. The only reason to book like this is laziness and Vince thinks it will make him money.

WM 30 should be built around a Punk/Cena confrontation with a stipulation like Street Fight or I Quit. A high stakes, hardcore blowoff in the main event on the grandest stage.
Rock/Cena III at 'Mania 30 would be a debacle.

I will not spend a penny on Rock/Cena III at 'Mania 30. I am a thieving bitch but I always go in for money on 'Mania.
How many times has the main event of Wrestlemania needed a gimmick match to sell? It's just not done. The match is the match. They use the gimmick matches on the other PPVs to try and spur buys.

I questioned why Rock won the first one since I figured that would be it, but with a second match it becomes more clear. The problem was they abandoned the Cena can't win angle too soon. They should have had him lose to Brock at Extreme Rules and kept going a bit with it but they didn't want to tarnish him too much.

I'll wait until I see the actual matches before commenting but considering what the other options were I'm more than fine with Rock/Cena II. As for not getting your money for WM30, I'm sure Vince is cool with that.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,222
12,972
438
Atlanta, GA
#22
Plus, how can you imply that Punk turning heel is a bad thing? He's been great since turning.
You've got that ass-backwards. We love Punk as a heel. Personally, that's part of why I hate the Rock/Cena feud and most of last year's booking. Instead of being treated as the longest-reigning WWE Champion in years, Punk was treated as not-John Cena.
John Cena vs. Fandango. Boom. There's your main event.
Shut the up and take my fucking money. I'm sold. (Although, I still say Undertaker vs. a kitten would net a higher buyrate.)
 
Feb 5, 2003
5,561
926
753
With a stranger
#23
Capable of helping turning things around? Make him look weak? Stop it. What was Punk as a face really doing? His feud against Jericho that should have been epic floundered. I agree that the placement of the matches was atrocious (I like the idea of the title being given top billing) but that wasn't the only thing to blame. Plus, how can you imply that Punk turning heel is a bad thing? He's been great since turning. Much more so than being some douche who keeping pining for ice cream bars.

Why should Rock have to work his way through the ranks again or win the Rumble? He's a multi-time former champ, a movie star, and he beat the top guy of the decade. He deserves a shot at the title. And you got two months of Rock/Punk, why does it matter when it happens? That transitioned to Rock/Cena with the added stipulation that its for the title. There was no other (storyline) reason for Rock to face Cena again after beating him, so they had it be for the title. Simple.

But by all means, keep insinuating that Rock and Cena are responsible for the ratings rapidly declining last fall instead of any of the other plethora of reasons for that happening.
Punk is great as a heel. He's the most entertaining thing about the company for the past year. However, his heel turn was done in a way that seems like it was more about making Cena look good rather than elevating Punk. Even as the champion he was always booked to look weak against Cena, just like everyone else Cena faces and that's the same boring, repetitive shit we've been fed for the past several years. The odds are always stacked against Cena and he always overcomes them. He never just loses cleanly, he can overcome outside interference, and when he does lose due to outside interference he always gets his win back no matter what. Elevate Ziggler? Why do that when you can have Ziggler lose a cage match despite having Big E Langston interfere on his behalf? Who cares if that makes the Money in the Bank holder look like a giant pussy who can't even win when he cheats?

I'm not saying that Rock/Cena is why ratings are down. I'm saying John Cena being the only top guy in the entire company is why ratings are down. When Cena goes on live TV and cuts a promo saying that he's going to face the winner of the Punk/Rock match even though he'd have a much easier time beting the World Heavyweight Champion (no matter who holds the belt when WrestleMania rolls around), he's saying that the entire Smackdown roster is weaker than him. He basically came out that night and took a giant shit on Sheamus, Big Show, ADR, Ziggler, etc. My point is that giving Punk/Rock the WrestleMania match with the same hype and effort they put into Rock/Cena would elevate Punk, make more people care about him, and would give the company the 2nd top-level guy they've been missing since the old-school guys started retiring and working 1 or 2 matches per year.

My reason for saying the Rock should have entered the Rumble is this: It would have forced him to "earn" the shot in the storyline. He hasn't been an active wrestler for years other than the occasional appearance up until now. For storyline puposes, he didn't deserve a title shot because he wasn't competing every night the way everone else does. Joe MOntana won multiple Super Bowls, but the 49ers wouldn't welcome him back out of retirement to be their starting QB without making him prove her deserved it. Having Rock with the Rumble also would have allowed them to do Punk/Rock at WrestleMania instead of repeating Rock/Cena when we all know that Cena is going to win. I happen to think that a match we haven't seen before that has some level of uncertainty to the outcome makes for a better main event than one that's a predictable rematch from a year ago.