rocky64 Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 How are they trying to add prestige back to the belt when there champions title defences are very rarely the main event on ppvs. That translates to me that there is something or someone bigger then the championship itself. Which even if that is the situation within a wrestling company it shouldn't be portrayed like that as it only serves to further devalue the belt. Â It doesn't help that certain people will receive several rematches over consecutive pay per views. That should never happen unless it's a best of series and even those should be restricted to mid card titles. No one wants to see the same bloke going after the title months after month Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted September 25, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted September 25, 2012 Ok, my stab at tag titles from 1990 onwards: Colossal Connection Demolition Hart Foundation Nasties LOD Natural Disasters Money Inc? Steiners Headshrinkers Smoking Gunns  Oh fuck knows why I'm even bothering. It ain't happening and I'm probably way off already.  Money Inc took the belts from LOD, then traded them twice with the Disasters and thrice with the Steiners who lost them to the Quebecers, who traded them once with Kid & Marty and once with Men on a Mission before dropping them to Headshrinkers on Raw. Shawn and Diesel beat the Headshrinkers before vacating them leading to the tournament won by Kid & Bob Holly, losing the belts to the Gunns the next night on Raw. I can't be arsed going further, but I can guarantee I'd get lost in 2000, unsure as to whether Edge & Christian traded the belts on consecutive Raws with Undertaker and Kane or Undertaker & Rock and whether it was their 5th or 6th reign, then the spring of 2001 when they went from Dudleys to E&C to Hardys to Dudleys in the space of two episodes of telly before collapsing in a confused heap when the WcW belts show up.  Remarkable that the belts used to be passed back and forth like a cheap whore, yet still were perceived as more valuable than they are now.  I can go back as far as Savage but I'd lose track somewhere around Jarrett and Razor's house show switches. Tag titles, I can get back about as far as Hart Foundation's last one, to Nasty Boys, then Legion of Doom, then I don't even know. Natural Disasters, Money Inc, Steiners all had the titles but I couldn't place the order of it.  Intercontinental back from Savage would be Tito, Valentine, Tito, Muraco, Pedro, Muraco, Pedro.... crikey, I want to say Ken Patera. We're already getting near Patterson there, I'm sure. Going forwards I'd get as far as the retirement of it and revival but probably miss a few of the RVD/Jericho/Christian swaps.... did Jeff Hardy drop it to Jericho in 2008 before his wellness holiday? In 2009 you have Rey-Morrison-McIntyre, but there's a big gap. After McIntyre.... Kofi? No, I'm fucked.  Tag belts backwards... who did Windham & Rotundo win them from the first time? Wild Samoans? Bloody hell, I used to know this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members stumobir Posted September 25, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted September 25, 2012 Unbelievable that Mick Foley only held the belt for 29 days in total throughout his 3 reigns, I remember one of them was only for a night but I thought the other two were for a fair few months. Suppose it's true what he said, it's not really how long you hold it for, it's how memorable you are that cements you as one of the greats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted September 26, 2012 Moderators Share Posted September 26, 2012 Tag belts backwards... who did Windham & Rotundo win them from the first time? Â Adonis and Murdoch. Awesome team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted September 26, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted September 26, 2012 That translates to me that there is something or someone bigger then the championship itself. Â And there is! Â Â Yay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocky64 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 That translates to me that there is something or someone bigger then the championship itself. Â And there is! Â Â Yay! Â Â But as I said you should never potray that fact,it devalues the title. Â Plus if cena wasn't such a company man then it cold lead to a volatile situation where the wrestler gets a massive ego and starts to believe he's the most Important aspect of the shoe, wcw did this with hogan and look out that worked out., Â The belt has been a prop for a while now, that's why it looks like a toy. It's purely another item of merchindice. Â There was a time when the belt actaully meant something to the wrestler, that's when as a champion you earned more money. Although now that doesnt appear to happen that's why some wrestlers don't have the same level as performance as in the 90's. Especially when it comes to promos, psychology etc. there's no neccasity these days because your marketability is morei important. Even someone who isn't great on the mic or imnthe ring can be pushed soley on popularity. Jeff hard for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vamp Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 But as I said you should never potray that fact,it devalues the title. Â I dunno, they tried headlining a show thath ad Rock/Hogan with Jericho/Trips for the title and that didn't exactly do the belt wonders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSF Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 But as I said you should never potray that fact,it devalues the title. Â I dunno, they tried headlining a show thath ad Rock/Hogan with Jericho/Trips for the title and that didn't exactly do the belt wonders. Â Thats a Big difference to Cena/Laurinaitis headling over the Champs. Although, it could have been a long thought out thing to eventually turn Punk heel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Tommy! Posted September 26, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted September 26, 2012 How are they trying to add prestige back to the belt when there champions title defences are very rarely the main event on ppvs. That translates to me that there is something or someone bigger then the championship itself. Which even if that is the situation within a wrestling company it shouldn't be portrayed like that as it only serves to further devalue the belt.  WCW used to have PPV's without the champion on them at all, and that made the belt seem bigger to me because when It was on it seemed special, an attraction of note.  It doesn't help that certain people will receive several rematches over consecutive pay per views. That should never happen unless it's a best of series and even those should be restricted to mid card titles. No one wants to see the same bloke going after the title months after month  Rock Vs Foley, Rock Vs HHH, Taker Vs Batista and HHH Vs Batista are all great examples against your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Up Chuck Posted September 26, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted September 26, 2012 As in Punk/Cena, which I would happily watch every month until the end of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members mim731 Posted September 27, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted September 27, 2012 I think consecutive PPV rematches are fine while there is an interest in a hot feud. But when it's dead on it's arse very early on like Sheamus vs Del Rio, I can see the logic against having it on repeated PPVs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.