WWE: Why John Cena and the Rock Had to Win Last Night at the Royal Rumble
Anyone who has read my articles with any amount of consistency knows that I am a huge CM Punk fan and fairly unsupportive of Superman himself, John Cena. However, Cena was absolutely the right person to win the Royal Rumble last night in Phoenix.
People have been complaining on this site and many others about how WWE should have given a new guy a rub by winning the Rumble. Names like Dolph Ziggler and Ryback have popped up, and most of these people say "We already saw The Rock versus Cena, I don't want to see it again."
The first thing you need to understand is that wrestling is a business, and business are all about making money. There is no bigger money match in WWE right now than The Rock vs. Cena, part two.
I understand that everyone has their favorite wrestlers, and everyone wants to see them pushed to the moon. There was no bigger CM Punk supporter out there than me, but Punk losing last night was what was good for business.
Punk's a professional. He knows his title reign made the WWE World Title seem important again, and he's smart enough to know that losing to The Rock last night was in the best interest of the company. Punk even got to score a pinfall on The Rock, so those screaming that he was "buried" have no idea what they are talking about.
John Cena versus The Rock at last year's WrestleMania was the highest-grossing match in WWE history, so why wouldn't you stage a rematch the next year? People are complaining "well, last year was promoted as 'once in a lifetime,' and now they are liars." Do you even watch wrestling? You're seriously stunned that a promotion went back on its word or that something unexpected happened?
John Cena deserved to win the Rumble because John Cena is a star. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is a star, both in wrestling and in movies. Both of those guys are much, much bigger stars than anyone else on the roster, and they are two of the few who have received any mainstream attention.
Sure, I understand why people wanted to see Dolph Ziggler win. He's a young, athletic worker who has loads of charisma and seems destined for future world-title wins. However, he's not a superstar right now. He has potential and loads of it, but potential doesn't draw money at the biggest show of the year.
This whole conversation all reverts back to the classic battle between "marks" (people who get fooled by the wrestling business) and "smart marks" (people who think they know the inner workings of the wrestling business).
A lot of people online claim to be "smart marks," fans who know what will "save" WWE, and that mostly involves turning John Cena heel and pushing Zack Ryder.
But, the bottom line is this: If you don't understand why Cena won the Royal Rumble last night and not Ryback, then you're not as smart as you think.
Also, if you think Punk was "treated unfairly" or was "buried" because he was pinned with the People's Elbow and not the Rock Bottom, then you're either a mark, or you're completely wrong.
Many of you might disagree with me. You'll spew your usual insults in the comments section and talk about how I don't know wrestling, blah blah blah. However, when the WrestleMania buyrate rolls in and you see record numbers once again, you'll know who was right.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?