Paid Members stumobir Posted January 29, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 29, 2012 Obviously not more credible than Austin or The Rock but WWE would have been pretty fucking boring and predictable if the belt went back and forth between the two of them for 6 years. Back then there were about 8 or 9 guys that could hold the belt and make it seem like a big deal and Jericho was definitely one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Freebird Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I caught a bit of Superstars in the hotel yesterday morning, and watched this years little Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Screen Up Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Freebird, I don't know why you don't just stream them over the following day or so. I don't have Sky anymore but there are some fantastic quality uploads kicking about that are up from a couple of hours after the events. If I don't stream an event live I'll just watch it the next day. Not perfect, but it's better than watching it after you've found out the results. Especially for the Rumble and 'Mania! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Freebird Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Freebird, I don't know why you don't just stream them over the following day or so. Â Thanks for the hint my friend. So these things stay up for watching at your leisure? I thought streams were only live when the event is actually on, a one off broadcast if you will. Â I will e-mail you a request for one tomorrow night if the footage is still available for consumption then. The Rumble is pretty much the only match I really want to avoid spoilers for, but I don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Richie doesn't believe in watching wrestling shows where he doesn't already know the result. Â Obviously not more credible than Austin or The Rock but WWE would have been pretty fucking boring and predictable if the belt went back and forth between the two of them for 6 years. Back then there were about 8 or 9 guys that could hold the belt and make it seem like a big deal and Jericho was definitely one of them. You've missed the point entirely. If Jericho was World Champion and Rock was Intercontinental champion, which title would seem grander? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twelve_grand Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Times change and the WWE machine is a very different beast in so many ways now. The mid-card (US and IC) belts don't warrant being fought over in a Rock/Austin-like fashion. If they put the Intercontinental title on Hogan back in the day it would have been shat on.  That's slightly contradictory! The model WWE has at the moment basically accepts gradual decline and occasional high points usually using old stars - they need to break out of that. To me it seems devaluing match results and titles is a problem. Trying to inject the IC & US titles and feuds for those titles with importance should be a year long project but it needs a jump start if they unified the world belts and put the champion officially on both shows. At the moment the Smackdown title match will be opening the WM show (underneath Shaq, the Rock etc) which is no way to run an organisation that is launching a TV network later in the year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Freebird Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Richie doesn't believe in watching wrestling shows where he doesn't already know the result. Â I do believe in it, it just very rarely happens. As I said, every Rumble result in over 10 years has found its way to my ears before the actual tape did. It Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted January 29, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 29, 2012 Hogan was actually going for the IC title at WrestleMania VI. I always wondered what would have happened if he'd have won the IC belt against the Warrior. Would they have unified it or would he have given it up like the Warrior did (pretty pointless even thinking about it really, since he was never actually winning the belt). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members stumobir Posted January 29, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 29, 2012 Obviously not more credible than Austin or The Rock but WWE would have been pretty fucking boring and predictable if the belt went back and forth between the two of them for 6 years. Back then there were about 8 or 9 guys that could hold the belt and make it seem like a big deal and Jericho was definitely one of them. You've missed the point entirely. If Jericho was World Champion and Rock was Intercontinental champion, which title would seem grander? Â I agreed that the midcard belts shouldn't be put on the big names, I was arguing against your Jericho is a midcard wrestler statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members WWFChilli Posted January 29, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 29, 2012 Hogan was actually going for the IC title at WrestleMania VI. I always wondered what would have happened if he'd have won the IC belt against the Warrior. Would they have unified it or would he have given it up like the Warrior did (pretty pointless even thinking about it really, since he was never actually winning the belt). Â What amuses me more is how much of a shit that would be for Hogan to behave. "I'm gonna win your belt, Brother! Then vacate it as it's not as good as my belt... Dude!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dingo Warrior Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Part of a quote from A Screen Up  Does winning a World championship really not mean anything?. Not when you compare it to people such as Bruno Sanmartino, Pedro Morales, Superstar Billy Graham, Bob Backland, Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, Lou Thez, Ric Flair, Harley Race, Dusty Rhodes, Ricky Steamboat, Sting, Bret Hart, Steve Austin, Dory Funk Jr, Terry Funk, Jack Brisco, Shawn Michaels.  World titles still meant something when the above people held them.  Championships today no longer have the same significance that they used to have in the past as they change hands far too quickly than they used to.  A Screen Up your statements make for interesting discussion and I mean that in a good way.  As far as the Rumble goes I will be watching it just out of interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted January 29, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 29, 2012 At this moment, the two top prizes are the bragging rights between Cena and Rock and the Undertaker's streak. I suppose you can make a case for the belts meaning fuck all. Thats why the WWE title needs to be in that Rock and Cena match. All eyes need to be on that belt. WWE's going to get a massive audience for Mania. The last thing the belts credibility needs is for the matches featuring each belt to be down the card, while the real stars battling it out over other issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members stumobir Posted January 29, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 29, 2012 At this moment, the two top prizes are the bragging rights between Cena and Rock and the Undertaker's streak. I suppose you can make a case for the belts meaning fuck all. Thats why the WWE title needs to be in that Rock and Cena match. All eyes need to be on that belt. WWE's going to get a massive audience for Mania. The last thing the belts credibility needs is for the matches featuring each belt to be down the card, while the real stars battling it out over other issues. Â If the belts in the Cena and Rock match then won't the rest of the card just feel littered with singles matches that noone cares about? There's no reason why the WWE title match can't be second from last with Takers the third from last. The likes of Punk, Ziggler etc need the belt to form the feud leading up to WM, Cena and The Rock don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted January 29, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 29, 2012 If the belts in the Cena and Rock match then won't the rest of the card just feel littered with singles matches that noone cares about? There's no reason why the WWE title match can't be second from last with Takers the third from last. The likes of Punk, Ziggler etc need the belt to form the feud leading up to WM, Cena and The Rock don't. The belt needs credibility. It does more damage if WrestleMania is watched by 1,000,000 buyers and the fans who dont usually watch for the rest of the year, see a homeless bloke with the belt around his waist. Ziggler, Punk and whoever can have the belt as many times as they like, but nobody sees them on the same level as Cena and definitely not the Rock. Punk and Jericho have an issue and wont need a belt, Undertaker vs HHH is for the streak, Orton vs whoever will have the World belt on the line, the MITB match doesnt need a title obviously. I cant see any of the matches that are currently touted needing the belt to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members stumobir Posted January 29, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 29, 2012 If Punk and Jericho does happen then fair enough that would work without the belt. I hope the US and IC feature at Wrestlemania this year instead of the pointless singles matches we were treated to last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.