King Pitcos Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 When did I say anything about better choices? You said Piper and DiBiase could easily have been WWF champions. If you can't come up with a valid suggestion for when these title reigns would have been, then you've just done the standard idiot thing of imagining wrestling from that era was like modern wrestling where everyone good gets a turn with the belt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted October 24, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted October 24, 2014 Piper and Dibiase could have easily been world champions in their prime. Because I enjoy poking morons: When would Roddy Piper and Ted DiBiase been better choices for WWF champion than whoever actually held the title at the time? I still would have had Dibiase take the title off Hogan in 1988 and drop it to Savage. Would have been much better than the shit tournament. Double main event - Hogan/Andre & Savage/Dibiase. The problem with this argument generally is that people don't necessarily mean that they should have been world champion - more that they were good enough to have been by current standards. Though in fairness, Koko B. Ware would get a title run now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShowOff Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 My comment was geared towards how over both were in their primes combined with the fact they were both excellent. Inferring either having a run with a belt (even if just for the chase of a Hogan / Savage type) idiocy is wrong. Would you argue a Dibiase run with the belt around Wrestlemania 4 time or Piper around WM1 / WTSTS would be "idiotically" chosen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Giving Roddy Piper the belt in 1985 when Hogan had just won it and was knocking about with celebrities and being pushed as the wrestling champion in the mainstream? Yes, it would be extremely idiotic, you'd have to be a high-ranking cretin to think it wouldn't. Especially as Piper would've refused to lose the belt until about 1992. The problem with this argument generally is that people don't necessarily mean that they should have been world champion - more that they were good enough to have been by current standards. Right, but if people genuinely do think that those kind of wrestlers should have been world champion instead of any of the Hogan/Savage/Warrior reigns, that's what makes them stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShowOff Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Pictos you must have one dull mind if you can't think of creative situations to make an already fine formula better. I don't think the WWE would have fallen apart if Piper "stole" the belt a WTSTS and Hogan reclaimed in an anticipated rematch at the first Wrestlemania just a short while later... Hogan would have still have had the "champion" press going into the MTV special, and the main event of WM1 would have been a bigger deal than the tag match with Hogan wanting "his" belt back and getting everybody behind him. Likewise DiBiase going into WM4 as champion instead of having a dull tournament full of five minute matches and non finishes. Either way, implying that both these guys weren't fit to hold the position of World champion, the original case in point is dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 (edited) And that's the kind of idiot that espouses these things. It starts with "well if Jack Swagger and Sheamus can win world belts, Roddy Piper should have had one!" because they can't distinguish between eighties wrestling and modern wrestling... And it ends with them making more fuckwitted statements like Hogan vs Piper in singles being a bigger WrestleMania main event than Hogan teaming up with Mr T. Just a total lack of perspective and intelligence. Could probably do with reading a few more books there, TheShowOff. Edited October 24, 2014 by King Pitcos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShowOff Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 (edited) It starts with "well if Jack Swagger and Sheamus can win world belts, Roddy Piper should have had one!" because they can't distinguish between eighties wrestling and modern wrestling... What are you going on about now? Jack Swagger and Sheamus being compared to Roddy Piper and Ted Dibiase? Jesus Christ. Again, you can't think of a way to work Mr T into a singles match with Hogan and Piper? Putting Mr T in a similar role to Tyson at WM14 would have still got the exact same amount of press. Or postpone the tag to another MTV special a couple of months later whilst everything was still hot? And again, you ignore the WM4 period completely... You seem to be getting far away from claiming Piper and DiBiase as World Champions would be idiocy choices to hold the belt... Edited October 24, 2014 by TheShowOff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Forgive me if you're ten years old or an actual special needs, TheShowOff, but if you're just acting like one, then I'm not sorry. Hulk Hogan and Mr T in a tag team match was a far, far bigger WrestleMania main event than Hulk Hogan vs Roddy Piper would have been. If you can't understand that, you are further showing yourself to be an extreme case of the kind of perspectiveless idiot that you got all defensive about being when you embarked on this path. On top of that, the WWF was a "babyface defends" territory, not a "babyface chases heel" territory -- Backlund and Sammartino had reigns that lasted years. Hogan being beaten for the title a year after winning it, less than a quarter of Backlund's reign, sets out your stall as the new lad not being up to snuff with your past champions. And Piper didn't lose by pinfall in those days, so getting it back on Hulk by DQ sets another shitty standard for your new flagbearer... All for the sake of everyone getting a go with the belt. You're making dumb suggestions because you are looking at old wrestlers by today's standards. WrestleMania 4. The point of WrestleMania 4, as a fan, was to see Hogan get his revenge on Andre (in by then the third match of their series) en route to getting his belt back. With a side dish of the unpredictability of a one-night tournament that might crown someone unexpected. And the construction of the tournament allowed them to sneak Macho Man into the top spot with the underdog story on the night. Savage vs DiBiase as the promoted title match, and Hogan vs Andre as a standalone rematch from the month prior, would have had much less appeal than the Hulkster reclaiming what's his. Regardless of how crap the tournament was, it did its job much better than any alternative suggested in this thread or elsewhere. If DiBiase gets given the title by Andre and keeps it, the main event at WM4 would've been Hogan vs DiBiase, probably with Hogan facing Andre earlier in the night as well. Then Hogan's champion for 1988, the Mega-Powers don't explode properly, and WrestleMania 5 is fucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShowOff Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Resorting to lots of name calling? Comparing the fabric and timeline of Bruno's reign to Hogans? Ignoring all of my points and running in a different direction? Asserting your opinion as fact? All brilliant stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted October 24, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted October 24, 2014 WrestleMania 4. The point of WrestleMania 4, as a fan, was to see Hogan get his revenge on Andre (in by then the third match of their series) en route to getting his belt back. With a side dish of the unpredictability of a one-night tournament that might crown someone unexpected. And the construction of the tournament allowed them to sneak Macho Man into the top spot with the underdog story on the night. Savage vs DiBiase as the promoted title match, and Hogan vs Andre as a standalone rematch from the month prior, would have had much less appeal than the Hulkster reclaiming what's his. Regardless of how crap the tournament was, it did its job much better than any alternative suggested in this thread or elsewhere. If DiBiase gets given the title by Andre and keeps it, the main event at WM4 would've been Hogan vs DiBiase, probably with Hogan facing Andre earlier in the night as well. Then Hogan's champion for 1988, the Mega-Powers don't explode properly, and WrestleMania 5 is fucked. I can see that argument but I still think that if Dibiase won the title as a result of Andre's interference then it would have made some sense for Hogan to vow revenge on Andre allowing them to make Dibiase vs. Savage as a double main event. I don't think it would've done less at the box office. Especially as the rest of the card might have actually excited people. From there, i wouldn't change the course of history. With you on Piper. The time I'd have liked to see Piper win the belt is 1992. It would have been epic if he'd won the belt in the Royal Rumble after taking the IC belt. Although given that what happened was epic anyway - very pointless. That crowd would have shit the bed for it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShowOff Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Exactly Rick, two scenarios off the top of your head where both men, could have been (as per my first post) world champions. Pictos is intent on making this an argument of should have been and forcing a rewrite of history to make his argument. With name calling~! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 (edited) I can see that argument but I still think that if Dibiase won the title as a result of Andre's interference then it would have made some sense for Hogan to vow revenge on Andre allowing them to make Dibiase vs. Savage as a double main event. I don't think it would've done less at the box office. Especially as the rest of the card might have actually excited people. From there, i wouldn't change the course of history. With you on Piper. The time I'd have liked to see Piper win the belt is 1992. It would have been epic if he'd won the belt in the Royal Rumble after taking the IC belt. Although given that what happened was epic anyway - very pointless. That crowd would have shit the bed for it though. Cards were sold on the main event -- in WrestleMania 4's case, the main event being either Hulk Hogan winning the belt back or someone new and unpredictable winning it. Why would Randy Savage have been in a one on one match for the title when the grudge was Hogan vs DiBiase? To get to Savage winning the belt, the tournament makes roughly a million times more sense and has a million times more appeal, except to fans who already liked Savage more than Hogan. I would've loved to see Piper win the 1992 Rumble, I was devastated when he got eliminated. But as an adult, it's plain to see that wouldn't have been the right call at all. Except to dimbulbs like TheShowOff, of course. TheShowOff, in case you haven't outed yourself as enough of a remedial yet, then before you continue crying about the difference between should, woulda and coulda... Reread the part of my post that you initially quoted when you first got defensive about how much of an idiot you are. It was about people who idiotically say that all the second-tier guys should've been champion. Here you go: That whole club of guys that people now idiotically say should've been WWF champion (Jake, Piper, DiBiase, Perfect, Rude etc) Now stop crying semantics, good lad. You're arguing that history could/should be rewritten so your favourites could have the WWF title on their CV like all the good modern wrestlers, and you're backing it up with nothing more than evidence that you're a know-nothing. Edited October 24, 2014 by King Pitcos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShowOff Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 I said "could" not "should" have as you desperately tried to steer this towards. Playing devils advocate, I took you up on your offer to present some possible scenarios (as Rick did) which would have made sense at the time, which may have, or may have not worked as well as the original. You then went onto some weird butterfly effect rants talking about Wrestlemania 5 being screwed, implying the loss national press, etc ignorant to the possibility things could have actually been better, asserting your opinions as facts. For example how do you know a year long DiBiase run wouldn't have resulted in the most hated heel of all time and produce a better main event for Wrestlemania 5? You don't. You've created a stupid argument where all history is perfect and any change would be gash. I like to think talented people and creative minds could have made everything work just fine. Thus, could. Oh, and something about Jack Swagger apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 I said "could" not "should" have as you desperately tried to steer this towards. How much of a slowbrain are you, honestly? I just gave you the initial quote that you got defensive about. Did you misread it or just forget what you'd actually responded to when you decided to clutch at semantic straws? Playing devils advocate, I took you up on your offer to present some possible scenarios (as Rick did) which would have made sense at the time Only you didn't, did you? You did silly fanwanktasy booking that was completely ignorant of the reality of the time and showed your lack of perspective, knowledge and intelligence. "Well wot if they dun the Mr T match on TV and dun Piper as champ at Mania" is not a sensible suggestion that may have done better than what actually happened. It's just nonsense, and demonstrates that you are exactly the kind of idiot that I was speaking generally about. Which explains why you took umbrage with it in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShowOff Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 (edited) I said "could" not "should" have as you desperately tried to steer this towards. How much of a slowbrain are you, honestly? I just gave you the initial quote that you got defensive about. Did you misread it or just forget what you'd actually responded to when you decided to clutch at semantic straws? Did you misread my first post then: Piper and Dibiase could have easily been world champions in their prime. You started going on and on about fitting them into a pre existing timeline to make it work under the assumption that anything other than what happened would have been gash and where applicable citing your opinion as fact. You keep on ignoring this in lieu of childish name calling which undermines anything constructive you may have to say. EDIT: To summarise amongst the waters you have muddied; I'm not saying history should have been different for Piper or DiBiase to have been World Champions (like you are trying to spin). I'm saying both were talented and over enough for it to have worked, had they of rolled the dice that way. You keep on missing the point in your massive melt downs. Edited October 24, 2014 by TheShowOff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.