The W
Views: 99182423
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.9.14 2345
The W - Pro Wrestling - Being crowned Raw champ w/o a match..
This thread has 7 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(11729 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (39 total)
dMp
Banger








Since: 4.1.02
From: The Hague, Netherlands (Europe)

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
#1 Posted on
Many of you bitch about HHH being handed the RAW title and mentioning that he didn't have to fight for it..Now I know its all backstage politics of Hunter, yadda yadda, but anyways..many say he doesn't deserve the title because he didn't win a match, has no heat, lost to HBK..

Now ask yourself..would you have react the same if the following men were handed the belt..

- Chris Jericho-->This guy has little heat right now, lost a string of important matches recently and isn't interesting enough right now to hold the big title.

- Ric Flair--> 16 time..but people said recently he shouldn't even be in the ring anymore. Lost most of his skills and looks old when he doesn't make the Flip. Giving him the title would be as much nostalgia as when they gave it to Hogan.

- RVD--> Got the IC title, why hand him another title?

- Booker T-->A good option to give the RAW title to, but he is busy with the Un-Americans.

Triple H--> proven main eventer who works well as the uberheel with the belt. Lost much of his charisma and work skills but by crippling HBK the average fan might care at least for a few weeks..

It's not the best of solutions but it raelly isnt as bad as you folks make it look you know..





The only person who is capable of carrying a broom to a five star outing is none other than....
Torri Welles
Promote this thread!
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 450 days
Last activity: 450 days
#2 Posted on
AT least if their was a match for the vacant title, the champion would have a slight bit of credibility. This sets the dangerous precedent for Steph/Steph to award herself a world title.



Thank you Mr. Wanz for the check, now you get an AWA World Title Reign. But be careful, my boy Greg is a heat machine.
skorpio17
Morcilla








Since: 11.7.02
From: New Jersey

Since last post: 2380 days
Last activity: 2380 days
#3 Posted on

    Originally posted by dMp
    Many of you bitch about HHH being handed the RAW title and mentioning that he didn't have to fight for it..Now I know its all backstage politics of Hunter, yadda yadda, but anyways..many say he doesn't deserve the title because he didn't win a match, has no heat, lost to HBK..

    Now ask yourself..would you have react the same if the following men were handed the belt..

    - Chris Jericho-->This guy has little heat right now, lost a string of important matches recently and isn't interesting enough right now to hold the big title.

    - Ric Flair--> 16 time..but people said recently he shouldn't even be in the ring anymore. Lost most of his skills and looks old when he doesn't make the Flip. Giving him the title would be as much nostalgia as when they gave it to Hogan.

    - RVD--> Got the IC title, why hand him another title?

    - Booker T-->A good option to give the RAW title to, but he is busy with the Un-Americans.

    Triple H--> proven main eventer who works well as the uberheel with the belt. Lost much of his charisma and work skills but by crippling HBK the average fan might care at least for a few weeks..

    It's not the best of solutions but it raelly isnt as bad as you folks make it look you know..




I'd bitch about anybody being HANDED a belt. It is short-term Russo type booking. Russo did it with Jarrett and Bret Hart and it still sucked. I agree that nobody else on Raw deserves to be HANDED a belt because Triple H is the only main eventer left on Raw. The person who really deserves the belt is Brock Lesner. He beat the Rock for the belt and never lost it. Brock's interference is the only reason Trips beat the Taker in the first place. The Ends do not justify the Means.

WhoBettahThanDeion
Bockwurst








Since: 4.1.02

Since last post: 4354 days
Last activity: 4190 days
#4 Posted on
Hey Yo...

I disagree adamantly about two things in the original post.

1. Jericho is not uninteresting. Period. Guy has proven time and time again he has the mic skills and the in-ring ability to be champ. His problem? He, like Sting in WCW, is bogged down with uninteresting storylines and jobs when he shouldn't.

2. Booker T in the WWE isn't a main eventer. Sad, but true. I like him, hell, most of the people on this board like him, but he's just not up there yet, and I don't know if he ever will be.

Also, I think RVD getting that title would make people interested in him again (face it, he hasn't been nearly as over as his first three or four months in the fed).

But, I don't unerstand why, in a worked sport such as wrestling, anyone can complain about someone getting a title. But, I do agree that it would have made it much loftier had Flair/HHH been for the title. I personally think with two world champions makes for compelling tv and makes the brand seperation even more apparent.



Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
BRUTLE
Linguica








Since: 27.8.02
From: Staten Island, New York

Since last post: 4350 days
Last activity: 4348 days
AIM:  
#5 Posted on
Arite listen, I don't mean to disrespect anybody here, but there is something seriously wrong with this title picture, and I'm surprised a lot more people don't see it. We all do agree that being handed a title is crap, even if he did beat Flair. That is irrelevant. The point here is this; Why is Brock Lesnar now 1/2 of the WWE Champion when he defeated the Undisputed Champion, The Rock? Granted, he is on only one show now, but why does that give Raw the right to say he's not the Undisputed Champion anymore? He is the man until somebody beats him. IT'S PURE LOGIC THAT PEOPLE AREN'T REALIZING. Someday I want RVD to beat HHH for the WWE Championship, it would mean so much to the company, and all that stuff. But if RVD beats HHH for the "Raw World Title", how does that sit well with anybody? When I look at that title Brock wears to the ring, I see Hogan vs. Andre, I see Rock vs. Austin, Bret vs. Shawn, I see history. When I look at HHH's belt, I see last Monday on Raw, when Bischoff took it out of a briefcase. That's the history of that belt right there - AND BEFORE YOU JUMP ALL OVER THE FACT THAT IT'S THE WCW BELT AND IT HAS MORE HISTORY THAN THE WWE BELT, I'm talking about the history of that specific title. The one Triple H has is NOT the same title as it used to be. The WCW Championship, represented by THAT belt, has been obsorbed into the belt Brock Lesnar wears to the ring. So please don't go off on me for saying HHH's title has no history - because it doesn't. The belt ITSELF is historic, but the title it represents is pointless. People need to look past the fact that the "BIG GOLD BELT" is back, because it's not the same as it was before. Brock Lesnar is the only WWE Champion. Period.

Edit 9/4 - What is everybody's thought on this? I'd like to hear your replies.

(edited by BRUTLE on 4.9.02 1227)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#6 Posted on
Didn't Kanyon get the US belt handed to him?



©CRZ™
Visit [slash] wrestling
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 450 days
Last activity: 450 days
#7 Posted on

    Originally posted by CRZ
    Didn't Kanyon get the US belt handed to him?









Yes he did. And look where the U.S. title is now.



Thank you Mr. Wanz for the check, now you get an AWA World Title Reign. But be careful, my boy Greg is a heat machine.
The Amazing Salami
Sujuk








Since: 23.5.02
From: Oklahoma

Since last post: 3758 days
Last activity: 3757 days
#8 Posted on
I'm only doing this because you asked for it....


    Originally posted by BRUTLE
    Arite listen, I don't mean to disrespect anybody here


If you weren't gonna disrespect anyone, then why did you have to start your post by saying that you weren't? Wouldn't it have been self-evident.?


    Originally posted by BRUTLE
    We all do agree that being handed a title is crap, even if he did beat Flair.


I think the post right before yours made it very apparent that we don't all agree with that point. Why worry about it? Like Deion said, it's a worked sport.


    Originally posted by BRUTLE
    The point here is this; Why is Brock Lesnar now 1/2 of the WWE Champion when he defeated the Undisputed Champion, The Rock? Granted, he is on only one show now, but why does that give Raw the right to say he's not the Undisputed Champion anymore? He is the man until somebody beats him. IT'S PURE LOGIC THAT PEOPLE AREN'T REALIZING.


OK. You said we should us logic ... how's this for logic? They are trying to seperate the brands so they can have more shows and PPVs and, in the end, make more money. Isn't it logical that each show should have it's own champ? In the storyline, the Raw GM has the power to do whatever he wants, as does the Smackdown GM. He can make a Raw title if he wants to. That doesn't mean the people have to accept it, but he has every "right" to do that on his show.


    Originally posted by BRUTLE
    Someday I want RVD to beat HHH for the WWE Championship, it would mean so much to the company, and all that stuff. But if RVD beats HHH for the "Raw World Title", how does that sit well with anybody?


I think it will sit well with anybody who is a fan of RVD (read IWC). But I'm not so sure that RVD going over HHH would "mean so much to the company."


    Originally posted by BRUTLE
    When I look at that title Brock wears to the ring, I see Hogan vs. Andre, I see Rock vs. Austin, Bret vs. Shawn, I see history. When I look at HHH's belt, I see last Monday on Raw, when Bischoff took it out of a briefcase. That's the history of that belt right there - AND BEFORE YOU JUMP ALL OVER THE FACT THAT IT'S THE WCW BELT AND IT HAS MORE HISTORY THAN THE WWE BELT, I'm talking about the history of that specific title. The one Triple H has is NOT the same title as it used to be. The WCW Championship, represented by THAT belt, has been obsorbed into the belt Brock Lesnar wears to the ring. So please don't go off on me for saying HHH's title has no history - because it doesn't. The belt ITSELF is historic, but the title it represents is pointless. People need to look past the fact that the "BIG GOLD BELT" is back, because it's not the same as it was before.


That's a pretty good point. But it doesn't change the fact that a second belt was needed to further separate the brands. I think the second belt was great long term planning by the WWE. Rarely do they follow through with long term stories. This time it looks like they will.


    Originally posted by BRUTLE
    Brock Lesnar is the only WWE Champion. Period.


Well, I hate to break it to you but you're wrong. He is the Smackdown champ and HHH is the Raw champ. That's the way it is whether you agree with it or not. Period.



"I'm in collision with every stone I ever threw." - David Gray
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1240 days
Last activity: 1037 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
It would be one thing to split the title. It's another to do it the way they did. Say they had a Brock/HHH match at Unforgiven and there was a controversial ending, with Bischoff recognizing HHH as champ and Steph recognizing Brock as champ. Then there would be some reasoning behind a disuputed championship, much in the same vain as the Buddy Rodgers/Lou Thesz matchup in 1963 that gave us the WWWF Championship in the first place.
Ringmistress
Lap cheong








Since: 15.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2645 days
Last activity: 2645 days
#10 Posted on
I think this whole separate belts thing is okay, but I still don't think the brands are that separate yet, so I'm not sure about this Raw champ or Smackdown champ stuff yet. Could they have waited until the new year for this?

Ringmistress



A heel for a heel who loves heels.
Sterling Golden
Cotechino








Since: 17.6.02
From: Silk City

Since last post: 2432 days
Last activity: 2419 days
#11 Posted on
After watching Flair-HHH, my question is, who looked like they were 50+ years old in the ring. HHH can do his intense promos, but how about backing it up in the ring. His last match I liked was against Undertaker at Wrestlemainia 2 years ago. As for him being handed the belt, why not. Who else were they going to give it to? Jeff Hardy?
Ringmistress
Lap cheong








Since: 15.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2645 days
Last activity: 2645 days
#12 Posted on
It's been only about a year and a half since then, actually Golden..



A heel for a heel who loves heels.
Scorpio
Boudin rouge








Since: 18.2.02
From: Laurel, MD, USA

Since last post: 3835 days
Last activity: 3786 days
#13 Posted on


    Originally posted by Ringmistress
    I think this whole separate belts thing is okay, but I still don't think the brands are that separate yet, so I'm not sure about this Raw champ or Smackdown champ stuff yet. Could they have waited until the new year for this?


Or more importantly, for people to start jumping from show to show week after week?!

And how many matches has HHH had on Raw? And now he's the champ?




PMMJ

"Nothing remains interesting where anything may happen." -H.G. Wells

Hokienautic
Liverwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Blacksburg VA

Since last post: 10 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#14 Posted on
Well, there is SOME logic in this. Look at boxing -- a boxer can hold a unified WBA-WBC-BFD belt, but if he refuses to fight the boxer that the WBC tags as the #1 contender, then the WBC can strip him of that portion of the belt. And not only was HHH Bischoff's legit #1 contender, but as Bischoff pointed out he WAS the last holder of the belt. A case could be made that the tournament for the Undisputed Belt that Jericho won didn't involve the belts changing hands, merely one belt being awarded to the winner.

Of course, one could also state that by beating HHH in the semis, Jericho instead was the last titleholder before he unified the two belts. Could be the basis for complaint, story-wise.

The only thing in question, in my mind, is Bischoff's authority to split that title off. I mean, why THAT belt instead of the other? But still, it's not as illogical and out of the realm of possibility that some here are making it sound.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on

    Originally posted by Hokienautic
    I mean, why THAT belt instead of the other?
In storyline terms it seems obvious - another attempt by Bischoff to remake RAW in his own image...as Nitro. They won't SAY WCW, but they'll work overtime to IMPLY it.



©CRZ™
Visit [slash] wrestling
SKLOKAZOID
Bratwurst








Since: 20.3.02
From: California

Since last post: 13 hours
Last activity: 31 min.
AIM:  
#16 Posted on

    Originally posted by Hokienautic
    Well, there is SOME logic in this. Look at boxing -- a boxer can hold a unified WBA-WBC-BFD belt, but if he refuses to fight the boxer that the WBC tags as the #1 contender, then the WBC can strip him of that portion of the belt. And not only was HHH Bischoff's legit #1 contender, but as Bischoff pointed out he WAS the last holder of the belt. A case could be made that the tournament for the Undisputed Belt that Jericho won didn't involve the belts changing hands, merely one belt being awarded to the winner.

    Of course, one could also state that by beating HHH in the semis, Jericho instead was the last titleholder before he unified the two belts. Could be the basis for complaint, story-wise.

    The only thing in question, in my mind, is Bischoff's authority to split that title off. I mean, why THAT belt instead of the other? But still, it's not as illogical and out of the realm of possibility that some here are making it sound.



Angle-wise, this makes sense, but where this is ultimately flawed is that Bischoff could have given HHH the title shot at the PPV. Brock may have chosen to work SMACKDOWN! only (which is terrible writing to begin with), but there is still the Pay-Per-View area which remains neutral.

In a business sense, this whole angle is a sham to make Brock's character look afraid of HHH's character and to give HHH a world title, which he has a *ugh* "legitimate" claim to in the angle.

Clearly, WWE is not giving Brock "the ball" Rock & Hogan were sacrificed for to give to him.
The Amazing Salami
Sujuk








Since: 23.5.02
From: Oklahoma

Since last post: 3758 days
Last activity: 3757 days
#17 Posted on
Another way this angle makes sense is Bischoff's big-star catering. Since his first show, Eric Bischoff has held true to form concerning his reputation. He kisses main event ass and blows off the midcard. Handing HHH the belt is just another way he kisses a main event ass AND repays HHH for jumping to Raw and being "loyal" to the Raw brand.



"I'm in collision with every stone I ever threw." - David Gray
skorpio17
Morcilla








Since: 11.7.02
From: New Jersey

Since last post: 2380 days
Last activity: 2380 days
#18 Posted on

    Originally posted by Hokienautic
    Well, there is SOME logic in this. Look at boxing -- a boxer can hold a unified WBA-WBC-BFD belt, but if he refuses to fight the boxer that the WBC tags as the #1 contender, then the WBC can strip him of that portion of the belt. And not only was HHH Bischoff's legit #1 contender, but as Bischoff pointed out he WAS the last holder of the belt. A case could be made that the tournament for the Undisputed Belt that Jericho won didn't involve the belts changing hands, merely one belt being awarded to the winner.

    Of course, one could also state that by beating HHH in the semis, Jericho instead was the last titleholder before he unified the two belts. Could be the basis for complaint, story-wise.

    The only thing in question, in my mind, is Bischoff's authority to split that title off. I mean, why THAT belt instead of the other? But still, it's not as illogical and out of the realm of possibility that some here are making it sound.



I'm getting way too worked up about this thing. But, in boxing the WBC champion only has to fight a top ten contender, not the #1 contender. The Undertaker would have to be considered Raw's #2 contender since he lost the #1 match vs. Trips. And since Brock/Taker is on for the next PPV, Brock shouldn't be stripped. And Brock had 30 days since he won to defend it, leaving him with at least another 3 weeks before he can be rightfully stripped.

In storyline terms, Triple H called out Brock saying he has no balls, and if Brock does not respond, than he is a pussy.


Ringmistress
Lap cheong








Since: 15.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2645 days
Last activity: 2645 days
#19 Posted on
Hmmm, these are some good points. I think the boxing analogy is a nice way of explaining the logic of it all.

Ringmistress



A heel for a heel who loves heels.
The Amazing Salami
Sujuk








Since: 23.5.02
From: Oklahoma

Since last post: 3758 days
Last activity: 3757 days
#20 Posted on
The analogy is interesting, but it's not really relevant.



"I'm in collision with every stone I ever threw." - David Gray
Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Time to Put Jim Ross out of our Misery
Next thread: That Benoit Video
Previous thread: At College
(11729 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
A little repetitive at times, but overall a great read Inverse. Thanks! -Jag
- Jaguar, Battling My Inner Mark (2002)
Related threads: 09.02.02 Raw Thoughts - Shawn.. - YES! The (WCW) WORLD TITLE!!! Ramifications? - More...
The W - Pro Wrestling - Being crowned Raw champ w/o a match..Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.446 seconds.