psyclown Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Me and a couple of mates entered into a discussion lately, mainly feuled by the talk at night of champions about "this would be Cenas 10th championship run"  the question was raised when exactly did the belt stop meaning anything, great wrestlers. Bret Hart HBK Undertaker and the list goes on,  when Bret won the belt for the third time That was a huge deal and it meant something. he had worked hard to win that belt. i remember Wrestlemania 13 and being 'Taker winning his second and feeling that he really earned it  nowadays you have guys winning belts after bing in the company a year or two, and guys like cena and orton havnig 10/11 runs already.  when did winning the belt stop meaning something? whose was the last meaningful reign? and can they turn it round so the belt does once again represent a champion instead of a merchandise machine or vinces latest favourite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Undertaker won the title a year after debuting. Austin won the title two years after debuting, so did The Rock. So by your criteria, that's when the titles stopped meaning something. Â and can they turn it round so the belt does once again represent a champion instead of a merchandise machine or vinces latest favourite Ah, i see now. You're a fucking idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Your Fight Site Posted September 25, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted September 25, 2012 Pro wrestling's a worked entertainment avenue. The belt's always been an indication of which wrestler the promoter had the most faith in to lead their promotion and shift merchandise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormy Weathers Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I'd say when they put the title on jobbers like Edge and The Miz the title stopped meaning anything. Â It started to get used more as a prop than an actual belt for a while the fact that Cena has 9 title runs just shows how little it means these days........hell the biggest Mac Daddy of them all Hogan only held the world title what 5 or 6 times (can't be arsed wiki'ing it) and Orton has probably held it more than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 jobbers like Edge and The Miz Lol dude......................................................... you don't............. know what that word m...........eans do you dude  ?  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormy Weathers Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 jobbers like Edge and The Miz Lol dude......................................................... you don't............. know what that word m...........eans do you dude  ?   Yeah gangrel's little buddy should never have been given the title the guy was a mid carder at best......He had no star power what so ever he was decent worker but not a world champion by any stretch of the imagination.  Don't even get me started on the Miz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 So translating your spastic dribble to English, you think "jobber" means "wrestler you don't like." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormy Weathers Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 So translating your spastic dribble to English, you think "jobber" means "wrestler you don't like." Â No it means wrestler who is there to put people over and make them look good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reznor Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Just a personal thing really, but for me it was round about Kane at KOTR 1998. Before that, I remember every reign well from when I started watching in 1990; After it, I couldn't rhyme off world title reigns and changes if my life depended on it despite watching the WWF just as much. After then, it felt like it was far more common to see title changes happening on all shows - B PPVs/RAWs etc, in less than memorable circumstances, and without a whole lot of hype & promotion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pol_pot_rick Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 So Edge and Miz are jobbers, yet in the "Who's the next Man?" thead your the spacker who thinks Tyson Kidd should be pushed hard and could carry the company? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSF Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Just a personal thing really, but for me it was round about Kane at KOTR 1998. Before that, I remember every reign well from when I started watching in 1990; After it, I couldn't rhyme off world title reigns and changes if my life depended on it despite watching the WWF just as much. After then, it felt like it was far more common to see title changes happening on all shows - B PPVs/RAWs etc, in less than memorable circumstances, and without a whole lot of hype & promotion  I think you've got a point there. I could probably name every champ from Bob Backlund up until the Austin beat Kane on Raw the next night. After that I'd be struggling for the most part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanchiz Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 So translating your spastic dribble to English, you think "jobber" means "wrestler you don't like."  No it means wrestler who is there to put people over and make them look good  Isn't that the job of every wrestler? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormy Weathers Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 So translating your spastic dribble to English, you think "jobber" means "wrestler you don't like."  No it means wrestler who is there to put people over and make them look good  Isn't that the job of every wrestler?  Apart from late 90's Nash and Hogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted September 25, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted September 25, 2012 I don't think the belts are meaningless. They've always protected it to a certain degree. I think they are relatively meaningful these days. Â The answer is obvious though. When they started playing pass the parcel with the belts in the late 90's, when people started racking up 3 and 4 title reigns in a year, when the thing was defended at the drop of a hat against anyone with no rhyme or reason. It was never going to come out of that as meaningful as before. Â Then you had two belts. That didn't help. Â Now every fucker has had a go with it. Â Considering all that, they are doing a good job at the moment of giving it back some prestige. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 So translating your spastic dribble to English, you think "jobber" means "wrestler you don't like."  No it means wrestler who is there to put people over and make them look good  Isn't that the job of every wrestler?  No. Just Edge, Miz and Rudy Diamond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.