The Smackers Thread

[DavidB6937]

1 minute ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

Can someone explain to me why Tiffany Stratton, the owner of the MitB briefcase, not only entered a tournament for a women’s title but subsequently won her match to move into the next stage?

Because there's multiple titles and she'd logically want to keep her MITB for one of the main ones? It's not that ridiculous. 

[Chili]

1 minute ago, DavidB6937 said:

Because there's multiple titles and she'd logically want to keep her MITB for one of the main ones? It's not that ridiculous. 

Yeah Edge did this in 2005. Had the MITB but won the Gold Rush Tournament too. Logically you would try and get that extra shot as a fallback. Especially a heel because they should always subtly think they can't win.

[DavidB6937]

Just now, Chili said:

Yeah Edge did this in 2005. Had the MITB but won the Gold Rush Tournament too. Logically you would try and get that extra shot as a fallback. Especially a heel because they should always subtly think they can't win.

Especially now they've had failed cash ins over the years. MITB isn't a guaranteed title.

[RedTwoster]

18 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

Can someone explain to me why Tiffany Stratton, the owner of the MitB briefcase, not only entered a tournament for a women’s title but subsequently won her match to move into the next stage?

Can you explain why she shouldn’t? Why wouldn’t she want to hold the US title and later cash in on the main belt, becoming the first woman in WWE history to hold two singles titles?

EDIT: I forgot that Becky Lynch did just that. Oops! The first woman to hold the US and World title at the same time, I mean!

1 hour ago, FLips said:

Aldis was spotted backstage talking to Dirty Dom so maybe a Judgement Day trade.

If Smackdown really is going 3-hours I could see them trading bigger names for multiple wrestlers, expanding the roster a bit. I’ve enjoyed the A-show era of Smackdown, and I really hope it doesn’t get Collisioned ahead of Raw’s Netflix move. Give the shows some level of parity.

Edited December 7, 2024 by RedTwoster

[Chili]

Is their any complaints about too many titles in WWE? Because I just looked and that's a lot of titles. Because 18 championships across three brands feels like a lot. 6 per show? Unless more have others? And there are two more women's titles coming in?

[Hannibal Scorch]

Appreciate the logic and thoughts, but you haven’t been able to sway me. If she’s considered main event talent, why go for a second tier title? Isn’t that what the midcard is for?

6 minutes ago, Chili said:

Is their any complaints about too many titles in WWE? Because I just looked and that's a lot of titles. Because 18 championships across three brands feels like a lot. 6 per show? Unless more have others? And there are two more women's titles coming in?

Yes at one point AEW/ROH had the same amount of titles as WWE , but they have now raced ahead by a few which seems excessive (I definitely think too many titles is a problem in general these days). Also I’ve seen the joke of “oh look another AEW tournament” when this year they have had 7 and WWE have had 23.

[DavidB6937]

11 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

Appreciate the logic and thoughts, but you haven’t been able to sway me. If she’s considered main event talent, why go for a second tier title? Isn’t that what the midcard is for?

1. She's not a champion and hasn't been on the main roster yet. If she hasn't won a title yet, why wouldn't she go for one? Especially the opportunity to be the first woman to hold that title.

2. As has already been said - multiple titles are better than one.

3. Why wouldn't the boss put her in the tournament? You don't just want to put filler in there. You want some decent names and she is one.

If your argument is that main event talent shouldn't be in it, are you saying Bayley or Bianca or Naomi etc shouldn't be in it either?

Edited December 7, 2024 by DavidB6937
I never needed you at all

[Chili]

Yeah if I hadn't won a title yet but was a heel and there was a new belt, as a heel you'd absolutely go for it not just to win, but for the sheer brag of being the first. 

[RedTwoster]

12 minutes ago, Chili said:

Is their any complaints about too many titles in WWE? Because I just looked and that's a lot of titles. Because 18 championships across three brands feels like a lot. 6 per show? Unless more have others? And there are two more women's titles coming in?

I’m not sure if you’re trying to say ‘why do people complain about this in AEW, but not WWE?’ but it’s not apples for apples here. In AEW you have four ill-defined singles belts for the men, two for the women.

In WWE there’s one main belt on each show, one secondary title. In AEW you have a trios division which detracts from the tag division; in WWE you have men’s tag belts for each show and a shared set of women’s tag belts (and another for NXT). Each belt serves a distinct purpose.

You could argue - fairly I’d say - that the women’s tag titles are an afterthought, and that the tag titles would be better off shared between the brands; but ultimately, it never feels like belt overkill because the titles all have a point, regardless of how well they’re utilised at any given time.

[Chili]

2 minutes ago, RedTwoster said:

I’m not sure if you’re trying to say ‘why do people complain about this in AEW, but not WWE?’ but it’s not apples for apples here. In AEW you have four ill-defined singles belts for the men, two for the women.

In WWE there’s one main belt on each show, one secondary title. In AEW you have a trios division which detracts from the tag division; in WWE you have men’s tag belts for each show and a shared set of women’s tag belts (and another for NXT). Each belt serves a distinct purpose.

You could argue - fairly I’d say - that the women’s tag titles are an afterthought, and that the tag titles would be better off shared between the brands; but ultimately, it never feels like belt overkill because the titles all have a point, regardless of how well they’re utilised at any given time.

Nope. I'm not trying to make it that. I'm just asking. AEW has a title too many and several of them are not booked very well. As someone who is not with the WWE product and having just read they have 18 titles soon to be 20, I wanted to know if people found their being too many belts an issue or over saturation.

[DavidB6937]

I never think it's a "lots of titles = bad" scenario. Its very much about how they're used and if they're worth having.

If WWE are going to start seriously building the women's divisions then the mid card titles are ones that have been asked for for quite some time. If they can support them then great. It'll depend on what they do with them.

If they introduced a mid card tag title for example then that'd be madness because they barely manage the ones they have already.

I feel like the structure they have at the moment is logical if they don't want to have to have talent crossing over all the time.

[Chili]

Yeah it's all down to how they are used. If they are being placed as a title for a certain level and not muddled (which not just AEW, but TNA and some of the Japan offices are guilty of sometimes.

There is such a thing as too many titles too. Just have a wiki at AAA. Oprah handing out belts south of the border.

[Supremo]

Both WWE and AEW could get rid of 90% of their belts for all I care.

But the WWE Championship? That’s Kevin Owens’. I’m more convinced with each passing week. It’s the move to make. Kevin is right.

Edited December 7, 2024 by Supremo

[RedTwoster]

Just now, Chili said:

Nope. I'm not trying to make it that. I'm just asking. AEW has a title too many and several of them are not booked very well. As someone who is not with the WWE product and having just read they have 18 titles soon to be 20, I wanted to know if people found their being too many belts an issue or over saturation.

No, I don’t mean that you’re trying to make it that - not in a tribal sense, at least - I mean, is that the context in which you’re asking that. Just to clarify!

If they ended the brand split and kept every title that complaint would definitely arise, but I doubt they’d do that.

I might have missed it, but did they put a timeframe on the trade window?

[Chili]

4 minutes ago, RedTwoster said:

No, I don’t mean that you’re trying to make it that - not in a tribal sense, at least - I mean, is that the context in which you’re asking that. Just to clarify!

If they ended the brand split and kept every title that complaint would definitely arise, but I doubt they’d do that.

I might have missed it, but did they put a timeframe on the trade window?

A trade window? Sorry you've lost me a bit there.