Random thoughts thread v2 *NO NEWS ITEMS*

[DraxSpago]

 

 

Cena (11)

Bryan (1)

Orton (8)

Bryan (2)

Vacant

Orton (9)

Bryan (3)

Vacant

Cena (12)

Lesnar (4)

Rollins (1)

 

So there you go, after all that we now know what we already did, Edge, Cena and Orton have had a fair few pointless title runs between them

Is this bit right? Orton and Bryan both appear one too many times, don't they?

 

Edit: oh I remember now, I wasn't watching much around the time of the reversed title win shenanigans. Didn't realise that counted as a reign for Bryan but Wiki agrees.

Yeah there's a couple that probably shouldn't count, Bryan's second win and all the Cena/Mysterio bollocks probably shouldn't be on there but they're listed as reigns so had to count them really

[Guest]

Am I the only one who think The New Day has jumped the shark, they are boring me now.

Maybe if anybody else was doing fucking anything, I could think that could maybe be the case. As it stands they are reviving the show by themselves.

[tiger_rick]

 

 

Cena (11)

Bryan (1)

Orton (8)

Bryan (2)

Vacant

Orton (9)

Bryan (3)

Vacant

Cena (12)

Lesnar (4)

Rollins (1)

 

So there you go, after all that we now know what we already did, Edge, Cena and Orton have had a fair few pointless title runs between them

Is this bit right? Orton and Bryan both appear one too many times, don't they?

 

Edit: oh I remember now, I wasn't watching much around the time of the reversed title win shenanigans. Didn't realise that counted as a reign for Bryan but Wiki agrees.

Yeah there's a couple that probably shouldn't count, Bryan's second win and all the Cena/Mysterio bollocks probably shouldn't be on there but they're listed as reigns so had to count them really

 

 

It's flawed. There's no way you wouldn't count the World title as well during the period where Edge/Taker/Batista where having runs - even if Khali did have a go. It was easily as prestigious then.

 

Apart from the times where they experimented with shite like Ziggler, Swagger, Bryan (the first time), etc and JBL's early reign, rarely was one title bigger than the other. The whole "Orton and Edge were shit" is fucking nonsense. I can't see any argument that business would have been nay better with one champion on both shows. Given that champion would have been HHH or Cena for most of the last 15 years, people would have been sick to death of it.

[DraxSpago]

Massively flawed, but still interesting nonetheless.  I'd agree both titles were pretty much even, probably until Punk won the big gold off Edge, that pretty much designated the World title as being the up and comers/not quite top belt, even when someone like Mark Henry won it (and massively deserved it) in 2011

[Chest Rockwell]

I'm pretty outraged at this lumping of Edge in with Orton. Orton is so fucking tedious.

[Pinc]

Of course it's flawed, Drax acknowledged that there were times when it was difficult to disentangle which belt was the more prestigious. But it's inarguable that for most of 2002-2013 the distinction was pretty clear, and it's interesting to tot up if for no other reason than it allows a fairer comparison of the post-Attitude era champs to their predecessors.

 

Looking at Drax's numbers for the ten or so main eventers they created in the two belts era and it's Edge's legacy that takes the biggest hit with a 7 reign swing. No one else loses more than 3 reigns, which I found a little surprising. I thought Orton for sure had pissed a few more SmackDown titles up the wall than that.

 

Lesnar doesn't lose any because he was always the Daddy.

 

Edited October 13, 2015 by Pinc

[DraxSpago]

As an aside, I think the real moment the titles started losing their lustre was when Edge lost his WWE title in the Elimination Chamber then just entered the one for the World title (I think he twatted someone before the match) and won it, only to drop it to Cena a month later anyway

[tiger_rick]

But it's inarguable that for most of 2002-2013 the distinction was pretty clear

I don't think it was especially apart from JBL-era Smackdown. I think Drax is spot on, the distinction came this decade. The key there is that the brand split was dying so they couldn't really have two World champions on the same level.

 

I don't see your argument really. You've already proven that Orton's dull as fuck reigns were meaningful. How you come to the conclusion that the far more entertaining, and just as legitimate, Edge wasn't is anyone's guess.

[Pinc]

I don't think it was especially apart from JBL-era Smackdown. I think Drax is spot on, the distinction came this decade. The key there is that the brand split was dying so they couldn't really have two World champions on the same level.

 

I don't see your argument really. You've already proven that Orton's dull as fuck reigns were meaningful. How you come to the conclusion that the far more entertaining, and just as legitimate, Edge wasn't is anyone's guess. 

 

I don't know if it's just your Edge fandom that's getting you so riled about this or what. It's just a bit of fun geez'.

 

The way that we came to that conclusion is explicitly detailed in Drax's original post. I'm not sure what you're not getting. His methodology isn't perfect because it requires a subjective judgement of which title belt was more prestigious across an eleven year period, but it's okay to extrapolate from imperfect data for the sake of a thought experiment.

 

The 'argument', such as it is, is that from 1963 to 2002 there was one WWE Championship, whereas for the eleven years that followed there was a second title given superficial parity. It's therefore difficult to compare the kayfabe achievements of the post-2002 crowd to those who came before them, but it's less of an apples and oranges comparison if you only count the 'real' champions (i.e. usually the Raw one) as legitimate. Of course there are other factors that make comparisons across eras difficult (number of shows, revenue models, etc), but it's fine to have caveats.

[Big Benny HG]

In kayfabe-land, you could argue there were two big titles of equal importance prior to 2002 as well, being the WWF/E Championship, and the WCW and/or NWA World Heavyweight Title (which WWE claims the history of for their 2002-2014 World Heavyweight Title).

[FUM]

I like Edge more, and don't really like Orton but I perceive Orton as a bigger star than Edge ever was. Edge certainly hasn't been "lumped in" with him.

[DeanoTheGame]

I made a mental decision to disregard every title run during the two belts era once they were unified. Makes the championship a lot more prestigious thinking only Orton, Bryan, Cena, Lesnar and Rollins have held it, and in my revised WWE scrubs like Ziggler, Miz and Swagger have never been close. 

[DraxSpago]

I made a mental decision to disregard every title run during the two belts era once they were unified. Makes the championship a lot more prestigious thinking only Orton, Bryan, Cena, Lesnar and Rollins have held it, and in my revised WWE scrubs like Ziggler, Miz and Swagger have never been close. 

 

That's not a bad shout actually, if Bryan hadn't have gotten injured there would probably only have been 4 champions in near enough 2 years

 

In regards to what Pinc and Rick are discussing above, when I listed the reigns I tried to keep away from which wrestler or which reign I preferred, more how each belt was presented on PPV's (when they had both belts on the same PPV) and in general by the company, as Pinc says, the Raw belt was pretty much always presented as the top one

[tiger_rick]

I don't know if it's just your Edge fandom that's getting you so riled about this or what. It's just a bit of fun geez'.

Riled? Bit pathetic dude.

 

I'm not a huge Edge fan, for the record. But others have mentioned some of the real shite who got runs in the two belts era and Edge is way above them.

 

In regards to what Pinc and Rick are discussing above, when I listed the reigns I tried to keep away from which wrestler or which reign I preferred, more how each belt was presented on PPV's (when they had both belts on the same PPV) and in general by the company, as Pinc says, the Raw belt was pretty much always presented as the top one

I can see where you're coming from - I just think it's flawed. It's irrelevent so only offering my 2p worth but I don't think the distinction is made through them trying to push Raw all the time. I think it's the quality and prestige of the people holding the titles. There's no way, for me, that Batista, Taker & Edge were secondary to anything.

 

I still don't particularly buy that having two World titles diminished anything either. There were two World champions (or more) for a long time before. They weren't both always prestigious but they were there and neither tarnished the other.

 

You make a good point about the PPVs though. Having both on the same PPV with one below isn't ideal.

[DraxSpago]

As I said in an earlier post, when Edge dropped his WWE title and ended the PPV winning the World title it just sent out the message "Well if they lose one title they can just go and win another" I know that's probably reading far too much into what was basically the creative team just setting the pieces for Wrestlemania

 

I agree about Batista, Taker and Edge (Taker and Edge headlining Mania for the World title when I've listed it as not being the main title, so yes it definitely is flawed), going a bit off topic though it does all stem from the presenting Raw as the main show, take your pic for when that started, I'd say either Triple H going mental at being drafted to Smackdown in 2004 or Cena's "promotion" to Raw in 2005

 

Weird thing is whenever they did anything like Bragging Rights or any cross promotion stuff, Smackdown always seemed to be portrayed as the faces, must've been their ham fisted attempt at balancing things out I suppose