|
Post by mikey1974 on Dec 2, 2013 8:17:38 GMT -5
I really don't see how the title change on RAW vs a PPV devalues the title itself. Especially compared to giving fans a half-assed finish (just a pitiful 13ish mins in) by ringing the bell before the match came to it's "intended" conclusion. Overall I give Vince a lot of credit, but there have been so many other events which have devalued the title more then having a title change on RAW over a PPV. If you choose to buy into the fantasy that the title means something I think most of those fans don't care whether the title changes on RAW or a PPV... we just expect more title changes at PPV's. this. Bret's reasoning too was solid - more people would see Raw than the PPV, so Michael's big Title victory would be seen by more people on Monday than Sunday night.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Dec 2, 2013 8:35:44 GMT -5
I really don't see how the title change on RAW vs a PPV devalues the title itself. Especially compared to giving fans a half-assed finish (just a pitiful 13ish mins in) by ringing the bell before the match came to it's "intended" conclusion. Overall I give Vince a lot of credit, but there have been so many other events which have devalued the title more then having a title change on RAW over a PPV. If you choose to buy into the fantasy that the title means something I think most of those fans don't care whether the title changes on RAW or a PPV... we just expect more title changes at PPV's. this. Bret's reasoning too was solid - more people would see Raw than the PPV, so Michael's big Title victory would be seen by more people on Monday than Sunday night. If that logic worked, then why did Austin win the title at WM 14? Surely he should've won it in a rematch on Raw the next night? The only reason the title should change on Raw is for shock value. The whole point of a PPV is that its a big moment that the previous weeks have been leading up to, and because its the big event it should have the big moments.
|
|
|
Post by mikey1974 on Dec 2, 2013 9:49:04 GMT -5
yeah,but -statistically - more people would watch the FREE Monday night show than would pay to see the PPV the night before.
not saying its the RIGHT logic,just saying Bret's reasoning. and we have had Title matches/switches the night after a PPV before,or on Smackdown that week.Austin won 3 of his WWF Titles on Raw. so did Triple H. and Mankind. and Sycho Sid. and Edge. and Brock Lesnar. and Randy Orton. and The Miz. and Bret Hart and Diesel won World titles at house shows! so it's not super common, but not super rare,for a Title to change hands at Raw or SD instead of a PPV.
this was a way for both sides to save face - Bret gets the win over Michaels on the PPV,cementing,in his mind,his place as the true Canadian hero,and going out "on top" at his last WWF pay per view.
Michaels gets the win,and the title,on Raw the next night,in front of a larger viewing audience than Sunday night,and gets to be The Man in the WWF while Bret leaves gracefully.
|
|
Captain McKay
Main Eventer
WF 15+ Year Member But all out of badges so this is not one
Joined on: Jul 13, 2002 14:19:45 GMT -5
Posts: 4,993
|
Post by Captain McKay on Dec 2, 2013 13:40:20 GMT -5
I really don't see how the title change on RAW vs a PPV devalues the title itself. Especially compared to giving fans a half-assed finish (just a pitiful 13ish mins in) by ringing the bell before the match came to it's "intended" conclusion. Overall I give Vince a lot of credit, but there have been so many other events which have devalued the title more then having a title change on RAW over a PPV. If you choose to buy into the fantasy that the title means something I think most of those fans don't care whether the title changes on RAW or a PPV... we just expect more title changes at PPV's. I think what Joker meant was Bret literally "handing over" the title with what he said. Not doing a job for someone. Basically, just saying "here's your belt, I'm leaving"...not unlike what Shawn Michaels had done earlier, mind you. But yes, if the title DID have to change hands THAT VERY NIGHT at Survivor Series, I still say they should have built up a three-way and had Undertaker in it. That way, Undertaker appears in the main event (rather than not appearing at all) and continues his feud with Shawn, Bret would be able to lose the title without being pinned (so he can say he TECHNICALLY didn't lose in Canada, and not look weak on his way out). And even if Shawn winning was Bret's problem, then have Undertaker win at SS, and Shawn win in a rematch the next night on Raw. After all, the one-day title reign was done earlier in the year, why not do it again? Hell, even have Kane cost Undertaker the title, furthering their heat leading into WMXIV. Point is, apparently no one booking was really thinking straight about all this. McMahon was in a panic over having to deal with Michaels' attitude and losing Hart, Cornette was mentally fed up with the entire WWF at the time, and Russo didn't know anything about how to craft a proper wrestling storyline. It was set up for disaster either way. Although, I honestly think that I wouldn't change a thing about it all. Out of this, we got a RED-HOT feud because of a heel McMahon that cemented 1998 as Austin's year. We also got an event that, for some reason, everyone still talks at great length about fifteen years after the fact, when everyone involved has buried the hatchet and moved on. Interesting stuff all around, IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 28, 2024 21:06:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2013 14:47:15 GMT -5
I think it's worth noting that in a shoot with Jim (I think RF) although he didn't exactly come out and say it, and he always gave Bret his support, he seemed to indicate that Bret should have just lost to Shawn and not taken the business so seriously. I really don't see how the title change on RAW vs a PPV devalues the title itself. Especially compared to giving fans a half-assed finish (just a pitiful 13ish mins in) by ringing the bell before the match came to it's "intended" conclusion. Overall I give Vince a lot of credit, but there have been so many other events which have devalued the title more then having a title change on RAW over a PPV. If you choose to buy into the fantasy that the title means something I think most of those fans don't care whether the title changes on RAW or a PPV... we just expect more title changes at PPV's. I think what Joker meant was Bret literally "handing over" the title with what he said. Not doing a job for someone. Basically, just saying "here's your belt, I'm leaving"...not unlike what Shawn Michaels had done earlier, mind you. But yes, if the title DID have to change hands THAT VERY NIGHT at Survivor Series, I still say they should have built up a three-way and had Undertaker in it. That way, Undertaker appears in the main event (rather than not appearing at all) and continues his feud with Shawn, Bret would be able to lose the title without being pinned (so he can say he TECHNICALLY didn't lose in Canada, and not look weak on his way out). And even if Shawn winning was Bret's problem, then have Undertaker win at SS, and Shawn win in a rematch the next night on Raw. After all, the one-day title reign was done earlier in the year, why not do it again? Hell, even have Kane cost Undertaker the title, furthering their heat leading into WMXIV. Point is, apparently no one booking was really thinking straight about all this. McMahon was in a panic over having to deal with Michaels' attitude and losing Hart, Cornette was mentally fed up with the entire WWF at the time, and Russo didn't know anything about how to craft a proper wrestling storyline. It was set up for disaster either way. Although, I honestly think that I wouldn't change a thing about it all. Out of this, we got a RED-HOT feud because of a heel McMahon that cemented 1998 as Austin's year. We also got an event that, for some reason, everyone still talks at great length about fifteen years after the fact, when everyone involved has buried the hatchet and moved on. Interesting stuff all around, IMO. Shawn forfeited so many titles. - IC in 93, they had to do the Battle Royal to crown a new one. - IC in 95 to Douglas. - WWF Championship in 97 due to "losing his smile"/phony knee injury. - Taggers with Diesel. - Taggers with Austin. Even if Bret had wanted to relinquish the title without doing the job (which would have been wrong) then he, of all people had no business having a problem with it. AND he wanted to do the same in 98 instead of doing the job for Austin, literally WEEKS after getting in Vince's ear about Bret.
|
|
|
Post by mikey1974 on Dec 2, 2013 16:40:29 GMT -5
not to mention the other factor - there was NO good reason Bret absolutely had to lose it at SS (or Raw the next night,for that matter) when he still had weeks left in the company. they could have had a little time to build up a quick feud.
I still think this was all Michaels,cause he KNEW that would be his last chance to go over on Bret and take the title from him. cause he wasn't winning it at SS,and he sure as hell wasn't winning it on Raw after refusing to do the job at SS. so Survivor series was likely Shawn's last match with Bret,and he knew it. so he just HAD to convince Vince that he should get the title that night,even if it took a screwjob.
|
|
|
Post by mikey1974 on Dec 2, 2013 16:47:43 GMT -5
one thing to remember - forfeiting the title was Bret's LAST choice!
he was willing to job to HBK,if Shawn jobbed to him first at SS. but HBK refused to job to Hart,so that went out the window.
he was willing to lose to Taker or Austin,which Vince also didn't want him to do.
so Bret felt he had no other option than to forfeit the Title,cause Vince wanted it off him then and there. and only wanted him to lose to Michaels. if Vince wouldn't have been so adamant about him not waking up that Tuesday morning with the Belt,there was enough time to work out another solution.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 28, 2024 21:06:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2013 18:20:13 GMT -5
I really don't see how the title change on RAW vs a PPV devalues the title itself. Especially compared to giving fans a half-assed finish (just a pitiful 13ish mins in) by ringing the bell before the match came to it's "intended" conclusion. Overall I give Vince a lot of credit, but there have been so many other events which have devalued the title more then having a title change on RAW over a PPV. If you choose to buy into the fantasy that the title means something I think most of those fans don't care whether the title changes on RAW or a PPV... we just expect more title changes at PPV's. not what I meant.I was talking about one of the scenarios where he would just vacate the belt on raw.
|
|
|
Post by Duck Holliday on Dec 2, 2013 19:20:52 GMT -5
I really don't see how the title change on RAW vs a PPV devalues the title itself. Especially compared to giving fans a half-assed finish (just a pitiful 13ish mins in) by ringing the bell before the match came to it's "intended" conclusion. Overall I give Vince a lot of credit, but there have been so many other events which have devalued the title more then having a title change on RAW over a PPV. If you choose to buy into the fantasy that the title means something I think most of those fans don't care whether the title changes on RAW or a PPV... we just expect more title changes at PPV's. not what I meant.I was talking about one of the scenarios where he would just vacate the belt on raw. Sorry, I read "handing the title over the next night on Raw" to include 'losing' the title on Raw (which was apparently an option). My mistake
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 28, 2024 21:06:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2013 19:42:23 GMT -5
not what I meant.I was talking about one of the scenarios where he would just vacate the belt on raw. Sorry, I read "handing the title over the next night on Raw" to include 'losing' the title on Raw (which was apparently an option). My mistake no sweat chief!!
|
|