June
Main Eventer
High Fives All Around!!!
Joined on: May 31, 2009 10:54:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,457
|
Post by June on Jul 19, 2009 7:08:13 GMT -5
I did not make this topic to discuss greats that have never held the WWF Title during the first boom period, but rather to discuss how much more prestigious the WWF title became due to greats such as Ted DiBiase, Roddy Piper, Curt Hennig, Jake Roberts & Rick Rude amongst others not getting a run with the top title.
I hate token title runs, and I love how the then WWF did not bastardize it's top title by passing it around to undeserving midcarders and young and unproven talent the way they did during the Attitude Era and for the Brock Lesnar period following it.
So please use this topic to discuss the prestige of the WWF Title.
|
|
|
|
Post by laythvandam on Jul 19, 2009 7:27:02 GMT -5
I'd say Lesnar was deserving, he was an athlete the likes of which had never been seen at that point, and he took the ball and ran with it and coped, unlike Randy Orton.
I tell you, if the guys you listed were around today they'd have won more world titles than Ric freakin' Flair, just shows you how now WWE give the belt to guys who don't deserve it or not ready for it.
Best examples are Orton and to an extent Cena, I felt Cena wasn't ready for the belt when he first won it.
|
|
|
|
Post by DTP. on Jul 19, 2009 9:11:32 GMT -5
Thing is, I wish I could imagine stars like Shelton Benjamin from today; Curt Hennig and Jake Roberts from the early 90s as WWF Champions, sure, they were over. But it all comes down to drawing shows. I could never see Benjamin as a headlining star and selling out shows everywhere.
Others, like CM Punk and Triple H were just forced down the fans throats until they were over.
|
|
June
Main Eventer
High Fives All Around!!!
Joined on: May 31, 2009 10:54:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,457
|
Post by June on Jul 19, 2009 12:48:06 GMT -5
At the time that Brock won the title he was far from deserving. He received a push that was out of this world and he ended up leaving the company within a few years leaving the WWE looking like fools.
A guy like Jake Roberts could have filled up arenas, seeing as howe Hacksaw did as Hogan's house show replacement. But as far a shelton is concerned he can't even get over with multiple lengthy IC and US title runs, if anything Shelton has proven that he can reduce the prestige of any title that he has.
|
|
|
|
Post by HugoOne on Jul 19, 2009 13:22:07 GMT -5
I'd say Lesnar was deserving, he was an athlete the likes of which had never been seen at that point, and he took the ball and ran with it and coped, unlike Randy Orton. I tell you, if the guys you listed were around today they'd have won more world titles than Ric freakin' Flair, just shows you how now WWE give the belt to guys who don't deserve it or not ready for it. Best examples are Orton and to an extent Cena, I felt Cena wasn't ready for the belt when he first won it. Lesnar definitely didn't deserve it. He had a unique size, sure, but he hadn't wrestled a single memorable/good match UNTIL the Rock bumped his ass off and gave him the belt. Yes, he became a great wrestler, but he wasn't showing it when he won the Championship. |
|
|
|
Post by Emerald Enthusiast on Jul 19, 2009 23:46:07 GMT -5
I'd say Lesnar was deserving, he was an athlete the likes of which had never been seen at that point, and he took the ball and ran with it and coped, unlike Randy Orton. I tell you, if the guys you listed were around today they'd have won more world titles than Ric freakin' Flair, just shows you how now WWE give the belt to guys who don't deserve it or not ready for it. Best examples are Orton and to an extent Cena, I felt Cena wasn't ready for the belt when he first won it. Lesnar definitely didn't deserve it. He had a unique size, sure, but he hadn't wrestled a single memorable/good match UNTIL the Rock bumped his ass off and gave him the belt. Yes, he became a great wrestler, but he wasn't showing it when he won the Championship. You don't remember the Smackdown match where Lesnar rendered Hulk Hogan unconscious with a bearhug? It was the most definitive loss Hulk had in his entire WWF career. That was prior to his win over Rock. |
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Bateman on Jul 20, 2009 1:28:42 GMT -5
Lesnar definitely didn't deserve it. He had a unique size, sure, but he hadn't wrestled a single memorable/good match UNTIL the Rock bumped his ass off and gave him the belt. Yes, he became a great wrestler, but he wasn't showing it when he won the Championship. You don't remember the Smackdown match where Lesnar rendered Hulk Hogan unconscious with a bearhug? It was the most definitive loss Hulk had in his entire WWF career. That was prior to his win over Rock. Did you just give Hulk Hogan credit? What the hell is happening? |
|
|
|
Post by Emerald Enthusiast on Jul 20, 2009 4:27:10 GMT -5
You don't remember the Smackdown match where Lesnar rendered Hulk Hogan unconscious with a bearhug? It was the most definitive loss Hulk had in his entire WWF career. That was prior to his win over Rock. ? What the hell is happening? Credit for doing a job? Sure.( Of course, he tried to convince Vinny Mac to let him get revenge on Lesnar and Vince balked) Credit for a good match? No. The only thing Hulk did well during the match was sell the bearhug well. Nonetheless, the image of Hulk on the mat, eyes closed, blood pouring from his mouth and Lesnar wiping it across his chest was memorable. I dare say my favorite Hulk Hogan moment. |
|
June
Main Eventer
High Fives All Around!!!
Joined on: May 31, 2009 10:54:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,457
|
Post by June on Jul 20, 2009 5:23:59 GMT -5
Lesnar definitely didn't deserve it. He had a unique size, sure, but he hadn't wrestled a single memorable/good match UNTIL the Rock bumped his ass off and gave him the belt. Yes, he became a great wrestler, but he wasn't showing it when he won the Championship. You don't remember the Smackdown match where Lesnar rendered Hulk Hogan unconscious with a bearhug? It was the most definitive loss Hulk had in his entire WWF career. That was prior to his win over Rock. That's not an example of a great match, that's the greatest of all time being sacrificed for a young unproven wrestler that was being shoved down the fans throats and pushed way too fast. |
|
|
|
Post by Lewscher on Jul 20, 2009 15:24:06 GMT -5
tbh classic wrestling still had the TRUE values Imo.....
nowadays take a look, cena,lesnar,rey, orton,hardy, etc and especialy punk...
theyre just attractions that made money, they never earned it or proved theyre worth. iu mean punk went from ROH to WHC?? hell no dude. just no that ruined the value of belts.....
bbelts mean nothing anymore but just people who are top favourites. most of whom dont deserve the honour. this goes for wwe and tna aswell....
back in "the day" (which i sadly had to live from VHS's i borroed and buyed at bootfairs) were when tittles meant something and they deserved it..... the values and respect of fellow athletes and classic wrestling traditions were still about but slowely deteriorating.... it was about the wrestling in awa and nwa era's but now its just freaking entertainment....
i hope you understand me as i do find it hard to organise my anger thoughts lol...
but here it is..
WWF classic = belts as a reward after proving worth and hard work...
WWF attitude = half way
WWE 02-present = a laugh.. belts are a way of attracting and showcasing to favourites. not top wrestlers.
sure i 04 benoit and hhh deserved them as a couple otheres did like goldberg. but now cena was a punk who won it after pimpin the US tittle. and then won wwe tittle. randy was like a storyline for evolution disbanding IMO and punk =just no...
|
|
hbkrules
Main Eventer
WF 10 Year Member
Joined on: Jun 18, 2002 11:49:32 GMT -5
Posts: 2,115
|
Post by hbkrules on Jul 20, 2009 17:18:17 GMT -5
I don't think anyone would agrue that belts are as prestigious today as they used to be. Today the wwe belt is used to get people over, in the past only the superstars who were already the most over would be rewarded with the belt.
|
|
robl7up
Main Eventer
139 refs
Joined on: Feb 16, 2006 12:34:15 GMT -5
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by robl7up on Jul 24, 2009 18:09:20 GMT -5
Personally I didnt have a problem with Lesnar winning the belt. To me he pretty much was a full package..He was billed as a "monster" and I think he did his job well. And I thought he was the right guy at the time.
I think the title is not as pretigious as it used to be. In part because of the brand expansion..Never liked that idea,still dont..One unified WORLD title would be more prestigeous as far as I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lita's Lover on Jul 26, 2009 1:43:29 GMT -5
WWE has THREE world titles (all under different names, but treated seemingly as equals). THAT is the big problem. I think TNA actually does a decent job with it's title. It's been the TNA World Heavyweight Title Since 2007 and here's the history of it
Angle
(vacant)
Angle
Sting
Angle
Joe
Sting
Foley
Angle
Already established guys, and for the most part one guy dominating it over a two year span (with a one month vacancy) holding it for over 330 over 4 title reigns. Titles in WWE are a joke, in TNA they still mean something
|
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Jul 26, 2009 21:02:18 GMT -5
i agree with lita's lover about tna's championship treatment.
i think the wwf belt basically fell when the bigshow got it to be honest. from there on in randoms would have shots all the time.
|
|
