Deleted
Joined on: May 12, 2024 18:40:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2014 16:20:12 GMT -5
Miz. Jeff Hardy's region could of been better. It should of been Hardy vs Hardy for the belt at WM25 IMO. Hardy vs. Hardy would be fine, but for the belt at 'Mania seems like it'd be underwhelming, especially for a landmark year (25th anniversary) or the most important PPV in wrestling. Ignoring my feelings on Jeff as a champion, Matt was never main event material, let alone Wrestlemania main event material. A sibling rivalry match is always a good one for the show, because there's always that animosity that can be played into, so it doesn't need the addition of a championship. Not only that, but it'd cause them to automatically lose one of the major storylines that always leads up to the show (the Royal Rumble winner hungry for his chance). Remember, even Bret vs. Owen wasn't for a title, and Bret even had a title match that same night.
|
|
|
Post by mikey1974 on Feb 26, 2014 17:22:43 GMT -5
Miz - he was red-hot from 2010 til winning the Title. after that,he flatlined. of course,it didn't help that hos main feud was with Jerry Lawler,and his match at Mania 27 basically was booked to only serve as a catalyst for Cena-Rock in the main event of the ext year's Mania.
Rey Mysterio - seriously! he held it for,what, an hour? only purpose for being Champion was to immediately lose it to Cena.
Sid - he was over,but was so clearly just a caretaker Champion til the scheduled next Champion could take over that it wasn't even funny.
Mankind - the Championship was more of a "Thank You Award" than an actual earned Championship,as he did basically nothing with his 3 reigns. and his last reign only took place because Austin wouldn't lose to Triple H.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 12, 2024 18:40:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2014 18:08:39 GMT -5
Mankind - the Championship was more of a "Thank You Award" than an actual earned Championship,as he did basically nothing with his 3 reigns. and his last reign only took place because Austin wouldn't lose to Triple H. While this is completely true, and by all logical reasoning, Mankind should never have been a world champion, I'm happy it happened. After all the work Mick put in and how much the fans loved him, giving him the belt was well-deserved.
|
|
|
Post by mikey1974 on Feb 26, 2014 18:18:00 GMT -5
I agree. it was a feel-good moment,he deserved it,and his first win cemented the WWF as the undisputed #1 again over WCW.
that said,unfortunately,his reigns really amounted to nothing,were very short,and only served to put someone else over.so as far as being the WWF Champion,his legacy AS Champion wasn't much sadly. it's know more for being able to say he was Champion rather than what he did as Champion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 12, 2024 18:40:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2014 18:29:59 GMT -5
I agree. it was a feel-good moment,he deserved it,and his first win cemented the WWF as the undisputed #1 again over WCW. that said,unfortunately,his reigns really amounted to nothing,were very short,and only served to put someone else over.so as far as being the WWF Champion,his legacy AS Champion wasn't much sadly. it's know more for being able to say he was Champion rather than what he did as Champion. Oh, I know. I didn't mean to say he shouldn't be on your list of bad champions, if that's how it came off. His reigns were so short, I don't even know if you could call them reigns. I just meant that, end of the day, regardless of how memorable his times as champion were, I'm still glad we can call Mick Foley a three time WWF/E Champion.
|
|
|
Post by mikey1974 on Feb 26, 2014 18:34:56 GMT -5
I agree. it was a feel-good moment,he deserved it,and his first win cemented the WWF as the undisputed #1 again over WCW. that said,unfortunately,his reigns really amounted to nothing,were very short,and only served to put someone else over.so as far as being the WWF Champion,his legacy AS Champion wasn't much sadly. it's know more for being able to say he was Champion rather than what he did as Champion. Oh, I know. I didn't mean to say he shouldn't be on your list of bad champions, if that's how it came off. His reigns were so short, I don't even know if you could call them reigns. I just meant that, end of the day, regardless of how memorable his times as champion were, I'm still glad we can call Mick Foley a three time WWF/E Champion. no,I understood and agree with your point. just was trying to explain my thinking on the subject,how I view his reigns.
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Feb 26, 2014 20:43:38 GMT -5
I always see the WWE Champion as "the best guy" in the company. The one where if you're going to book a show, you put him in the main event to sell the tickets. With that, these are my top choices of champion since Ive been alive. Rey Mysterio The Miz Jeff Hardy Sheamus Eddie Guerrero Mr. McMahon I can understand why a guy like Slaughter makes a lot of lists but people have to remember his Iraqi gimmick got some serious ing heat. That's HUGE while trying to sell tickets. People hated Slaughter so you book him against a big name that seem believable that can beat him like Hogan or Warrior and people are gonna eat the crap outta it.
|
|
|
Post by Rontaro13 on Feb 26, 2014 21:04:29 GMT -5
Jeff Hardy, Kane, and Rey Mysterio. All 3 of them were booked pretty bad as WWE Champion. Jeff Hardy only had the title for a month and I think he should of held it longer. Kane had the title for a day which was pointless, Stone Cold should of just beat Kane at KOTR 98. Rey Mysterio's title reign was absolute crap, that was one of the few times Cena pissed me off.
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Feb 26, 2014 21:12:38 GMT -5
Yea like someone else stated, Bob Backlund he was just sooo hokey. Flairs run as champ in 92 wasnt great either. Diesel, Khali God the list goes on. Never remember anything entertaining with their run as champs. Diesel had a great year as Champion. I wouldn't say he was a bad champion at all! He had great matches with Bret Hart on two PPVs, wrestled HBK at WM 11, worked with Sid for three straight PPVs in a row, had a nice tag match with HBK vs. Yoko & Bulldog, and had some good TV matches with Jeff Jarrett and Bam Bam Bigelow. The only match that wasn't that great for Diesel was vs. British Bulldog. I think it was because it was two power man in the ring, and one was 7 feet tall, the other was 5'9" tall. It just didn't mesh well. Had he closed Mania XI with Shawn and faced someone like Razor at SummerSlam 95, who he actually has a history with from their IC Title feud and who he has in-ring and real life chemistry with, then it would have been a different story. That Mabel match kind of ed him. Mabel sucked.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 12, 2024 18:40:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2014 0:41:57 GMT -5
How about Hogan's reign after WM 9. It was too early for a nostalgia run and it made Yoko a two time champion... yuck. I agree with Joker on Yoko.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 12, 2024 18:40:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2014 3:41:08 GMT -5
I always see the WWE Champion as "the best guy" in the company. The one where if you're going to book a show, you put him in the main event to sell the tickets. With that, these are my top choices of champion since Ive been alive. Rey Mysterio The Miz Jeff Hardy Sheamus Eddie Guerrero Mr. McMahon I can understand why a guy like Slaughter makes a lot of lists but people have to remember his Iraqi gimmick got some serious ing heat. That's HUGE while trying to sell tickets. People hated Slaughter so you book him against a big name that seem believable that can beat him like Hogan or Warrior and people are gonna eat the crap outta it. The thing with Slaughter is that he'd lost the majority of his heat by the time he became champion. Had he won the title earlier, then maybe it'd be different.
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Feb 27, 2014 8:49:21 GMT -5
I always see the WWE Champion as "the best guy" in the company. The one where if you're going to book a show, you put him in the main event to sell the tickets. With that, these are my top choices of champion since Ive been alive. Rey Mysterio The Miz Jeff Hardy Sheamus Eddie Guerrero Mr. McMahon I can understand why a guy like Slaughter makes a lot of lists but people have to remember his Iraqi gimmick got some serious ing heat. That's HUGE while trying to sell tickets. People hated Slaughter so you book him against a big name that seem believable that can beat him like Hogan or Warrior and people are gonna eat the crap outta it. The problem was 2 fold... 1) Slaughter had always been a midcarder. Before his heel turn he was never once pushed as a top name. And he went right back to the midcard following his feud with Hogan. The fans didn't buy him going up against Hogan. 2) His heel turn simply gained him cheap heat because Vince wanted to take advantage of a real life situation. And when it came time to sell tickets Slaughter failed because fans didn't buy into that crap. Off topic but it would have been so much better had Savage taken the title from Warrior and defended against Warrior or a rematch with Hogan at WM.
|
|
koreygunz
Main Eventer
Elite Trader
287 Refs in WFClassifieds and counting
Joined on: Jun 18, 2006 15:31:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,675
|
Post by koreygunz on Feb 27, 2014 10:19:49 GMT -5
I always see the WWE Champion as "the best guy" in the company. The one where if you're going to book a show, you put him in the main event to sell the tickets. With that, these are my top choices of champion since Ive been alive. Rey Mysterio The Miz Jeff Hardy Sheamus Eddie Guerrero Mr. McMahon I can understand why a guy like Slaughter makes a lot of lists but people have to remember his Iraqi gimmick got some serious ing heat. That's HUGE while trying to sell tickets. People hated Slaughter so you book him against a big name that seem believable that can beat him like Hogan or Warrior and people are gonna eat the crap outta it. The problem was 2 fold... 1) Slaughter had always been a midcarder. Before his heel turn he was never once pushed as a top name. And he went right back to the midcard following his feud with Hogan. The fans didn't buy him going up against Hogan. 2) His heel turn simply gained him cheap heat because Vince wanted to take advantage of a real life situation. And when it came time to sell tickets Slaughter failed because fans didn't buy into that crap. Off topic but it would have been so much better had Savage taken the title from Warrior and defended against Warrior or a rematch with Hogan at WM. Warrior vs Savage: Title vs Career should have main evented WM7. Hogan could still face Slaughter, vanquish the evil foreign sympathizer, and set up Warrior vs Hogan 2 at SummerSlam I really think Vince sabotoged warriors reign as champ by continuing to push Hogan as "the guy" even though warrior was champion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 12, 2024 18:40:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2014 10:42:59 GMT -5
I always see the WWE Champion as "the best guy" in the company. The one where if you're going to book a show, you put him in the main event to sell the tickets. With that, these are my top choices of champion since Ive been alive. Rey Mysterio The Miz Jeff Hardy Sheamus Eddie Guerrero Mr. McMahon I can understand why a guy like Slaughter makes a lot of lists but people have to remember his Iraqi gimmick got some serious ing heat. That's HUGE while trying to sell tickets. People hated Slaughter so you book him against a big name that seem believable that can beat him like Hogan or Warrior and people are gonna eat the crap outta it. The problem was 2 fold... 1) Slaughter had always been a midcarder. Before his heel turn he was never once pushed as a top name. And he went right back to the midcard following his feud with Hogan. The fans didn't buy him going up against Hogan. 2) His heel turn simply gained him cheap heat because Vince wanted to take advantage of a real life situation. And when it came time to sell tickets Slaughter failed because fans didn't buy into that crap. Off topic but it would have been so much better had Savage taken the title from Warrior and defended against Warrior or a rematch with Hogan at WM. Hennig or Earthquake would have been far better in Slaughter's spot IMO. We never really got a big payoff to either feud, Hogan and Slaughter's feud had a perfect end at Summerslam 1991.
|
|
|
Post by CrossRhodes on Feb 27, 2014 10:51:23 GMT -5
The Rock - 2013 Rumble -.-!
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 12, 2024 18:40:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2014 11:41:20 GMT -5
Miz. Jeff Hardy's region could of been better. It should of been Hardy vs Hardy for the belt at WM25 IMO. Hardy vs. Hardy would be fine, but for the belt at 'Mania seems like it'd be underwhelming, especially for a landmark year (25th anniversary) or the most important PPV in wrestling. Ignoring my feelings on Jeff as a champion, Matt was never main event material, let alone Wrestlemania main event material. A sibling rivalry match is always a good one for the show, because there's always that animosity that can be played into, so it doesn't need the addition of a championship. Not only that, but it'd cause them to automatically lose one of the major storylines that always leads up to the show (the Royal Rumble winner hungry for his chance). Remember, even Bret vs. Owen wasn't for a title, and Bret even had a title match that same night.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah on Feb 27, 2014 12:45:49 GMT -5
No offense guys but really wrestling reigns are just storylines. And a long time ago bookers realized that putting a belt on someone is just to sell tickets. Now if that person loses their title to a less deserving person they will pay more just to see the good guy win the belt back. Point in example kennedy vs batista should have had batista lose at rumble win it back at no way out then continue taker vs batista instead taker & batista vs hbk & cena no really a good payout and lame main event one of the worst im told. If these so called transitional champs didnt exsist the crowds would get bored remember cena's year long reign and how stale it got
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 12, 2024 18:40:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2014 13:06:51 GMT -5
No offense guys but really wrestling reigns are just storylines. And a long time ago bookers realized that putting a belt on someone is just to sell tickets. Now if that person loses their title to a less deserving person they will pay more just to see the good guy win the belt back. Point in example kennedy vs batista should have had batista lose at rumble win it back at no way out then continue taker vs batista instead taker & batista vs hbk & cena no really a good payout and lame main event one of the worst im told. If these so called transitional champs didnt exsist the crowds would get bored remember cena's year long reign and how stale it got We're discussing poorly done stories. And Cena's year-long reign is a poor example. It wasboring because it only really involved one feud and because fans (rightfully) thought he wasn't worthy of being champ for even a day at that point, let alone an entire year, not because he held the title for a year.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah on Feb 27, 2014 13:22:55 GMT -5
But peopleon here are bashing the wrestler's ability these guys were over to a degree when internet wasn't around they still had to have an impression bashing sgt slaughter everyone knew he was dropping to hogan just like savage just like yokozuna like perfect and the giant. Bad storylines are ones that hurt wrestlers such as aj stlyes baby crap. And Cena reign was because they didnt want to have dena lose face points. Even though the adult males hated it. Kids and woman loved it. But because they focused so heavily on him now here it is 2013 and the title card is dry cena bryan batista orton thats it
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 12, 2024 18:40:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2014 14:04:22 GMT -5
But peopleon here are bashing the wrestler's ability these guys were over to a degree when internet wasn't around they still had to have an impression bashing sgt slaughter everyone knew he was dropping to hogan just like savage just like yokozuna like perfect and the giant. Bad storylines are ones that hurt wrestlers such as aj stlyes baby crap. And Cena reign was because they didnt want to have dena lose face points. Even though the adult males hated it. Kids and woman loved it. But because they focused so heavily on him now here it is 2013 and the title card is dry cena bryan batista orton thats it The majority of the posts have nothing to do with a wrestler's abity. The posts about Yoko aren't about his in-ring work, it's about how a supposedly dominant monster heel had to use dirty tactics to get the upper hand when he should've dominated people due to his sheer size. I don't think there was even a single post saying Slaughter was a terrible wrestler, just that his reign wasn't good. Also, I don't think a bad storyline always hurts a wrestler's credentials; it just needs to not go over or make absolutely no sense. For example, Faarooq seeking revenge from the NOD after they usurped him wasn't a bad story by any means, the fans just didn't get behind it, so it ended up being a bad one. They quickly dropped it and teamed him with Bradshaw, making both more popular than ever. Another example would be when Undertaker feuded with The Dudleys. They were going to bury Paul Bearer in concrete if Undertaker lost. Undertaker won to save Bearer, then randomly decided to bury him anyway. It made absolutely no sense, but no one saw it and said, "I can't take Undertaker seriously anymore." Sure, the truly terrible ones can hurt a reputation sometimes, but even Kane wasn't too effected by Katie Vick.
|
|