Originally posted by BigDaddyLocoCan the WWE keep Kofi more over than they did Santino when he surprisingly won the IC Title? Hopefully.
Or Rocky Maivia.
I would say that Kofi's more over than either of those two were when they won the title, so I would think he'll do okay. The IC title is made for dudes like him who have a good crisp moveset but aren't the best talkers in the world (though Kofi is better than some, certainly).
I am going to guess that the brand split will continue to be as strictly enforced after the draft as it was before, which is to say not much at all. I'm going to go out on a limb and say we are still going to see plenty of Triple H on Raw. Now that would beg the question of why have a brand split at all if it's not going to be enforced. So we'll see how it goes.
The Bored are already here. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And no... we won't kill dolphins. But koalas are fair game.
I was quite underwhelmed by this show. I thought the two main title matches really saved the show, but still, it was a thumbs-in-the-middle. The undercard really did nothing for me. And I was disappointed they didn't bring in legends like they did last year to represent each title.
Originally posted by mikebukThanks Boffo. As far as replacement tag team partners within a title reign goes, I recall Dude Love replaced Shawn Michaels' half to partner 'Stone Cold' Steve Austin in July 1997.
Chief 'Val Venis' Morley did similar in March 2003 when he took over William Regal's half with Lance Storm.
(edited by mikebuk on 1.7.08 2159)
If memory serves correctly:
-Dude Love was a new reign, because they had stripped the titles a bit before, which caused Dude Love to campaign for being the partner (knowing that Austin & TBA were getting the first shot at the new titles). -Morley officially stripped Storm & Regal of the titles, and officially awarded Storm & Morley the titles, which sounds like a new reign to me.
It is the policy of the documentary crew to remain true observers and not interfere with its subjects.
Originally posted by mikebukI've been looking at sites that do title history listings so I can make sure mine are correct.
I know certainly to beware of taking the WWE's listings as totally accurate as they are likely to be heavily in kayfabe mode.
They might doggedly cling to obviously falsities, like the story of Pat Patterson and the Rio de Janeiro tournament, but at some point you're talking about the wins and losses of fake fighting. The way I see it, the history of WWE titles are whatever they say they are, the same way that the history of Middle Earth is whatever J.R.R. Tolkein said it was, and the thing in the package in "Cast Away" is whatever the director says it is. I'd maybe make an exception for the WCW and ECW title histories (I ask, retorically, did Benoit win the WCW Championship in 2000 or didn't he?), but at some point you're (insert colloquial expression here).
Even though I was there live, there were a couple of things here I wanted to see on TV before I commented on. Looks like Bourne's actual injury was his right ankle, so they spent the match working his left.