I hate doing this, because we all know the people who run McMahonland have the attention span of a gnat. However, with the split of the world title belts, its time to remember the Board of Directors. Now, wasn't it that illustrious group of idiots who caused the split put forth in that dynamic statement by Linda 'i've been dead for 10 years and no one realizes it yet' McMahon. Since that group decided on the split and the titles that would bounce back and forth, wouldn't it mean that they could veto Steph/Steph making the Unified Title SD only? This only comes to mind because when I see the Giant Gold Belt desecrated like this, I think back to that illustrious International Board of Directors that WCW had in the mid 90's, and we all know where they are 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 only continuity they care about is continuing to have their jobs, which, at the rate they're going, is quite a concern to have. Unfortunately, the world can't be full of Shohei Babas to keep each company neurotically headed in the right direction.
Originally posted by JubukiThe only continuity they care about is continuing to have their jobs, which, at the rate they're going, is quite a concern to have. Unfortunately, the world can't be full of Shohei Babas to keep each company neurotically headed in the right direction.
I agree, If these writers would listen to us, we would not be bitching about the product these days. In a way it kind of funny how the WWE leadership has turned such as ME, ME, ME, not Them, Them, Them. I could point a finger at one single person in the WWE but I can't think of "her" name.
The (now-disputed) Undisputed title is somehow Smackdown exclusive. Bischoff brings back the WCW title as RAW only. Completely going against the whole point of the split, true. And how in hell do Eric and Stephanie get the power to cancel or unify the belts, or make the world title specific to one show? (they have no idea what they're doing.) oh yeah....
But maybe there's a bigger plan in mind? Maybe this'll lead to Linda/Vince/new Commissioner-type stepping in to knock this crap off and establish new guidelines for the belts? Like maybe make it so that all champs can flow between both shows?
Originally posted by barkingpantherThe (now-disputed) Undisputed title is somehow Smackdown exclusive. Bischoff brings back the WCW title as RAW only. Completely going against the whole point of the split, true. And how in hell do Eric and Stephanie get the power to cancel or unify the belts, or make the world title specific to one show? (they have no idea what they're doing.) oh yeah....
But maybe there's a bigger plan in mind? Maybe this'll lead to Linda/Vince/new Commissioner-type stepping in to knock this crap off and establish new guidelines for the belts? Like maybe make it so that all champs can flow between both shows?
Too bad they can't blame Russo, or maybe they took Russo's ideas after they canned him?
It seems like the only way this whole thing works is if this is phase one of a real split, and Eric walks out on Monday with a Monday Nitro set. Otherwise, too many questions arise even for the "continuity is a foreign concept for us" writers. As in:
-Are the two "world" titles the same in importance? -Can the "Raw" title be defended against a Smackdown wrestler? -What happens if said Smackdown wrestler WINS the belt? -What happens if tha wrestler happens to also hold the "undesputed title" at the time?
Unless there is a true (or as true as we can get) brand split in the works, and soon, this just seems like another "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" idea.
The title isn't Smackdown! exclusive. Nor, really, is Brock. He's just being bribed (storyline-wise) to not appear on Raw. According to the way they set it up at the start, the champ CAN appear on both shows. Nobody ever (to my recollection) said he HAD to.
Of course, that begs the question of why Eric doesn't just outbid Steph and get Brock back to Raw to stay, but that's logic and that just doesn't work in this world.
My take on it is the reason the belt's "disputed" is because of the alternating title shots thing that they've done since the beginning of the split. The new belt's more symbolic than anything, although it could be a startup to a "true" split. Like barkingpanther said, it's likely going to be an excuse to get one of the other McMahons into the picture, to settle the issue and re-unify the belts with some sort of big match (possibly holding both belts up until Survivor Series and some big gimmick match, with the "Survivor" being Undisputed Champ.) Probably Vince, although I'd prefer it be Linda just because she wouldn't be on TV as much.
Kansas-born and deeply ashamed The last living La Parka Marka: HE raised the briefcase!
Just my opinion, of course, but creating a "true split" (to borrow a phrase already in use on this thread) between RAW and Smackdown appears to be WWE's ultimate goal. We've witnessed the gradual separation of the RAW and SmackDown "brands" into (almost) separate promotions, each with its own roster, style, look, and now top title. The next logical step will be separate Pay-Per-Views's, allowing WWE to increase its annual number of PPV's from the current twelve to (probably) eighteen-twenty. While I don't pretend to know the inner workings of the corporate minds the run World Wrestling Entertainment, what we're seeing on our televisions is consistant with their stated plans that they made public shortly after they purchased WCW from AOL-Time-Warner-Turner.
As to storyline-wise, I agree that a better effort could have been made to portray some semblance of continuity. Perhaps giving some on-screen time to Linda McMahon (with or without a few extras, er, board members) for her to announce/discuss that allowing the two commissioners to each have their own champions is in the best interest of WWE as a whole (perhaps even having the "board" vote on the matter) would have helped tie up some of the loose ends that have been mentioned above. But on the whole IMHO WWE has done a fine job in their on-screen portrayal of the acheivement of their real-life corporate goal to own and operate two separate and distinct international wrestling promotions.
Originally posted by Downtown BookieJust my opinion, of course, but creating a "true split" (to borrow a phrase already in use on this thread) between RAW and Smackdown appears to be WWE's ultimate goal. We've witnessed the gradual separation of the RAW and SmackDown "brands" into (almost) separate promotions, each with its own roster, style, look, and now top title. The next logical step will be separate Pay-Per-Views's, allowing WWE to increase its annual number of PPV's from the current twelve to (probably) eighteen-twenty. While I don't pretend to know the inner workings of the corporate minds the run World Wrestling Entertainment, what we're seeing on our televisions is consistant with their stated plans that they made public shortly after they purchased WCW from AOL-Time-Warner-Turner.
As to storyline-wise, I agree that a better effort could have been made to portray some semblance of continuity. Perhaps giving some on-screen time to Linda McMahon (with or without a few extras, er, board members) for her to announce/discuss that allowing the two commissioners to each have their own champions is in the best interest of WWE as a whole (perhaps even having the "board" vote on the matter) would have helped tie up some of the loose ends that have been mentioned above. But on the whole IMHO WWE has done a fine job in their on-screen portrayal of the acheivement of their real-life corporate goal to own and operate two separate and distinct international wrestling promotions.
Downtown Bookie has it right, I recall that a part of the original plan was to keep the WCW identity alive, and spin it off as a second company. Invasion, and the lack of enough top flight WCW talent from the begining may well have altered the plan a bit, but it appears it will live on in this form, with the dual "brands", and Eric giving off the Nitro vibes. What I don't know is how they plan on convincing us to buy another 6-8 ppv's a year, when at 35 bucks a pop, the 12 we are getting now are about 4 too many.
A good start to having separate ppv's *and* good, long storylines would be to have Raw and Smackdown alternate ppv's every month. That way you could build up to it like the old days when they had half the ppvs. Instead of hotshotting angles for a four week blow off, you get an eight week simmering battle that will make them have to book for the long term.
Maybe it's time they give Eddie a month or so off, not because he's doing a bad job (at all), but because he deserves the break. Seriously, he's been one of the only bright spots on SmackDown this year.