Deleted
Joined on: May 18, 2024 0:33:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2014 20:27:58 GMT -5
Perfect Razor Rude Dibiase .............and lastly Ziggler....yes ....take Del Rios and/or Mizs runs and give them to Ziggler......I think he would have made a better champ then either of them did.
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Mar 8, 2014 20:37:11 GMT -5
Roddy Piper & Ted DiBiase are truly the only real options on who should have been WWE Champion. A lot of other guys named were amazing talents, guys like Perfect, Rude, Owen etc but they simply didnt have the "it" to draw and fill seats. These guys were better off in roles as the antagonist against face champions.
|
|
Alpha Q Up
Main Eventer
Not gravitas
Joined on: Jun 20, 2010 21:48:13 GMT -5
Posts: 2,691
|
Post by Alpha Q Up on Mar 8, 2014 21:01:35 GMT -5
Booker T should have gone over HHH at Wrestlemania 19 honestly. He was already very over with the crowd, even if he only held it for one month and lost it at the next PPV, it would have been justified.
In my opinion faces should always go over at Wrestlemania for the World Title, especially with the obvious racial instigation comments HHH made for cheap heat like ''Someone like YOU should never be the champion''. Triple H has let guys go over him at WM, although it didn't really start to happen until after Mania 19, maybe he learned from his mistakes?
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Mar 8, 2014 21:26:44 GMT -5
None. There's nobody that never held the title, particularly in the 80s and early 90s, who would have been a better champion than the guy who did hold it at the time. There was never a time when Ted DiBiase or Mr Perfect should have beaten Hogan, Savage or Warrior for the title. Doesn't Vince always say there is more money in the babyface chasing the title? So doesn't it seem likely that Roddy Piper, the most over heel of his time, should have held the title to get people to pay to see Hogan beat him? I mean I'm asking you but that's mostly just rhetorical because the answer is yes. Otherwise, why would any heel ever win the title at all. You can't be serious though in actually believing that WWE has never made a single mistake in giving a guy a title or not giving a guy a title. That's some level of saying your prayers and eating your vitamins brother.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Yeeter on Mar 8, 2014 22:31:15 GMT -5
None. There's nobody that never held the title, particularly in the 80s and early 90s, who would have been a better champion than the guy who did hold it at the time. There was never a time when Ted DiBiase or Mr Perfect should have beaten Hogan, Savage or Warrior for the title. Doesn't Vince always say there is more money in the babyface chasing the title? So doesn't it seem likely that Roddy Piper, the most over heel of his time, should have held the title to get people to pay to see Hogan beat him? I mean I'm asking you but that's mostly just rhetorical because the answer is yes. Otherwise, why would any heel ever win the title at all. Nope. The WWF was a babyface-led territory with long title runs for the top face, unlike the NWA where the heel travelled around making each territory's top face look good. The WWF was all about having a champion people could get behind -- look at the title history. After Hogan's first title win, the next heel champion that got more than a transitional reign was Yokozuna, and possibly the only guy that never won the title that should've is Luger, if McMahon really wanted to create the next Hogan. The Luger push was blown at SummerSlam when they held off the title win for WrestleMania, by which point the fans had lost interest because the WWF wasn't a long-chase territory. Piper, though? No way. WrestleMania and the eighties boom rode a wave of popularity built around Hogan as the champion teaming with a celebrity. Nobody can name a valid one that should've won the title and didn't -- Luger is the closest, and he sucked, so was he really ever a better choice as champ than Yokozuna? Essentially, people use these discussions as "which wrestlers from my childhood/before I was born would I fantasy-book as champion?" And it's based on people not being able to understand that pre-attitude, not everybody got a run with the belt. You couldn't just give Jake Roberts the title from TLC '88 to Elimination Chamber '89 because those shows and those marginal guy title reigns didn't exist at that time the way they have in the modern era.
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Mar 8, 2014 23:33:27 GMT -5
Doesn't Vince always say there is more money in the babyface chasing the title? So doesn't it seem likely that Roddy Piper, the most over heel of his time, should have held the title to get people to pay to see Hogan beat him? I mean I'm asking you but that's mostly just rhetorical because the answer is yes. Otherwise, why would any heel ever win the title at all. Nope. The WWF was a babyface-led territory with long title runs for the top face, unlike the NWA where the heel travelled around making each territory's top face look good. The WWF was all about having a champion people could get behind -- look at the title history. After Hogan's first title win, the next heel champion that got more than a transitional reign was Yokozuna, and possibly the only guy that never won the title that should've is Luger, if McMahon really wanted to create the next Hogan. The Luger push was blown at SummerSlam when they held off the title win for WrestleMania, by which point the fans had lost interest because the WWF wasn't a long-chase territory. Piper, though? No way. WrestleMania and the eighties boom rode a wave of popularity built around Hogan as the champion teaming with a celebrity. Nobody can name a valid one that should've won the title and didn't -- Luger is the closest, and he sucked, so was he really ever a better choice as champ than Yokozuna? Essentially, people use these discussions as "which wrestlers from my childhood/before I was born would I fantasy-book as champion?" And it's based on people not being able to understand that pre-attitude, not everybody got a run with the belt. You couldn't just give Jake Roberts the title from TLC '88 to Elimination Chamber '89 because those shows and those marginal guy title reigns didn't exist at that time the way they have in the modern era. Iron Sheik, Sgt Slaughter, Undertaker, Ric Flair, Bob Backlund, Sycho Sid, WWE has no problem making a guy a transitional champion when it's convenient. You surmise that Luger was the closest, but Yokozuna held the title for 280 days, thus proving that Vince, on some level, was comfortable with a heel champion for a year. Pretty much opens it wide open for top heels after that point on. You simply can't tell me that Roddy Piper walking into WrestleMania 2 with the title and facing off against Hogan, wouldn't have drawn more money than Hogan walking in as champion and beating Bundy. You don't know. I understand that WWE didn't do it at that time, which is the flaw in your logic for me, but I'm saying if they weren't tied to that specific belief system it could have been more successful for them, thus necessitating the title run (for Piper in this instance). You are living and dying on what WWE did or was doing, and I'm saying what they were doing wasn't perfect. You built your belief system on the idea that just because something was/is successful that it's somehow the most efficient way it could have been done, which I don't believe to be true. To each their own. I get where you're coming from but I simply don't agree.
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Mar 8, 2014 23:41:01 GMT -5
I'll keep it relatively short...
Piper Perfect Rude Smith Roberts Steamboat Dibiase
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Yeeter on Mar 9, 2014 0:11:46 GMT -5
Iron Sheik, Sgt Slaughter, Undertaker, Ric Flair, Bob Backlund, Sycho Sid, WWE has no problem making a guy a transitional champion when it's convenient. When it's convenient. When would it have been convenient for a transitional champion to have beaten Hogan to get it onto the next guy? Would Mr Perfect beating Randy Savage at The Main Event in February '89 and then defending against Hogan at WrestleMania V have drawn bigger than the Mega-Powers exploding? Would Rick Rude beating Hogan in February '90 to lose to Warrior at WrestleMania VI have drawn bigger than the Ultimate Challenge? The answer to these questions is a resounding "no". 280 days is under a year. There were long heel reigns before Hogan came, and when Hogan was gone, but none during the Hogan era -- and that's not random, that's because the WWF made its money by having a superhero champion defending the title against nefarious contenders on the road. And even then, Yoko holding the title that long was due to getting cold feet about SummerSlam and thinking that Lex Luger would be more popular with the long chase rather than winning it a month after turning babyface. Which top heels after Yoko didn't win it that should have? The usual answers in these threads are the pre-Yoko guys like Perfect, DiBiase, Rude, because people don't get that not everybody got a turn with the belt in those days. Relatively few people ever argue that Ludvig Borga, Jerry Lawler, King Mabel and Bam Bam Bigelow should have been WWF champion. There's maybe Vader, certainly on paper, but he was pretty awful in the WWF and it's hard to argue that he should've had Sid's 1996-97 reign. Hard to argue with success. I can understand wanting Roddy Piper to have been WWF Champion, but it just wasn't a feasible option. For one thing, it would've required a Hulk Hogan loss to switch the title. Hogan wasn't just going to lose the title willy-nilly on the off-chance that him vs Piper was a bigger special attraction than him in a cage vs a monster. Plus, the WrestleMania 2 weirdness of three venues needed main events in all of those venues. Piper vs Mr T was one of those main events. And another huge reason that Piper couldn't have won the title (especially then) is he'd never have done the televised job to lose it back anyway. My belief is that I'm all ears to an idea that actually considers the people, circumstances and reality of the time and is a better idea than what actually happened. With hindsight it's easy to say Lex Luger sucked so Luger not winning at SummerSlam was a good idea, or Luger not winning at SummerSlam was a bad idea because WWF audiences were used to babyfaces that succeeded, or that Hogan and Piper should've been hypnotised into doing jobs for each other because the Piper vs Mr T boxing match sucked, etc. But at the time, anyone booking to draw money wouldn't have veered far from what did happen. There are things from around that time that can be looked at as missed opportunities (like Hogan vs Flair at WrestleMania VIII) but "never made [whoever] champion" isn't one of them. It's just a case of people thinking that because The Miz, Jack Swagger, Del Rio etc have been world champions in this era, that everyone half-decent from the Hulkamania era should've been too. Different time.
|
|
MDCasino
Main Eventer
110+ Refs | https://forum.wrestlingfigs.com/post/5229118/thread
Joined on: May 14, 2005 18:23:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,278
|
Post by MDCasino on Mar 9, 2014 0:18:45 GMT -5
Test
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Mar 9, 2014 1:09:36 GMT -5
/thread. Best to never be world champion.
|
|
jakksking1
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 2, 2011 14:45:41 GMT -5
Posts: 2,843
|
Post by jakksking1 on Mar 9, 2014 6:54:35 GMT -5
As great as Piper, Dibiase and Perfect were in the ring and on the mic, I don't think a mistake was made by not putting the belt on them.
I think there are 2 guys, up until the late 90s, who could have laid legitimate claim to a world title run. The first is Andre. Andre got a 20 minute title reign, I know, but he was one of the biggest draws of all time, and one of the most over wrestlers in the 70s and 80s. He didn't need a title to be over. The other guy is Owen Hart. He was in one of the hottest feuds in the mid-90s with his brother, and put on at least 2 instant classics with him. I think he would have been a much better transitional champ than a 45 year old Bob Backlund.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 18, 2024 0:33:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 7:22:56 GMT -5
Iron Sheik, Sgt Slaughter, Undertaker, Ric Flair, Bob Backlund, Sycho Sid, WWE has no problem making a guy a transitional champion when it's convenient. When it's convenient. When would it have been convenient for a transitional champion to have beaten Hogan to get it onto the next guy? Would Mr Perfect beating Randy Savage at The Main Event in February '89 and then defending against Hogan at WrestleMania V have drawn bigger than the Mega-Powers exploding? Would Rick Rude beating Hogan in February '90 to lose to Warrior at WrestleMania VI have drawn bigger than the Ultimate Challenge? The answer to these questions is a resounding "no". 280 days is under a year. There were long heel reigns before Hogan came, and when Hogan was gone, but none during the Hogan era -- and that's not random, that's because the WWF made its money by having a superhero champion defending the title against nefarious contenders on the road. And even then, Yoko holding the title that long was due to getting cold feet about SummerSlam and thinking that Lex Luger would be more popular with the long chase rather than winning it a month after turning babyface. Which top heels after Yoko didn't win it that should have? The usual answers in these threads are the pre-Yoko guys like Perfect, DiBiase, Rude, because people don't get that not everybody got a turn with the belt in those days. Relatively few people ever argue that Ludvig Borga, Jerry Lawler, King Mabel and Bam Bam Bigelow should have been WWF champion. There's maybe Vader, certainly on paper, but he was pretty awful in the WWF and it's hard to argue that he should've had Sid's 1996-97 reign. Hard to argue with success. I can understand wanting Roddy Piper to have been WWF Champion, but it just wasn't a feasible option. For one thing, it would've required a Hulk Hogan loss to switch the title. Hogan wasn't just going to lose the title willy-nilly on the off-chance that him vs Piper was a bigger special attraction than him in a cage vs a monster. Plus, the WrestleMania 2 weirdness of three venues needed main events in all of those venues. Piper vs Mr T was one of those main events. And another huge reason that Piper couldn't have won the title (especially then) is he'd never have done the televised job to lose it back anyway. My belief is that I'm all ears to an idea that actually considers the people, circumstances and reality of the time and is a better idea than what actually happened. With hindsight it's easy to say Lex Luger sucked so Luger not winning at SummerSlam was a good idea, or Luger not winning at SummerSlam was a bad idea because WWF audiences were used to babyfaces that succeeded, or that Hogan and Piper should've been hypnotised into doing jobs for each other because the Piper vs Mr T boxing match sucked, etc. But at the time, anyone booking to draw money wouldn't have veered far from what did happen. There are things from around that time that can be looked at as missed opportunities (like Hogan vs Flair at WrestleMania VIII) but "never made [whoever] champion" isn't one of them. It's just a case of people thinking that because The Miz, Jack Swagger, Del Rio etc have been world champions in this era, that everyone half-decent from the Hulkamania era should've been too. Different time. God dammit man, quit making so much sense. I just want Piper to have been Champion. Is that to much to ask out of life?!
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 18, 2024 0:33:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 7:28:16 GMT -5
Billy Gunn. He was huge in 1999 but The Rock ruined his push by burying him at Summerslam. An uncrowned champion in my opinion. Chronic misunderstanding of the word buried here. HHH was chosen as Vince's new 1# heel over Jarrett & Gunn in 1999. He reasoning & choice were 100% correct.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 18, 2024 0:33:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 7:31:35 GMT -5
Mr Wonderful Paul Orndorff is my choice. His matches with Hogan were electric and he would have tore the house down with Hogan @ WM2
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 18, 2024 0:33:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 7:37:37 GMT -5
The British Bulldog should have be given at least one reign as champ. I don't think he should have at all. he was given his big shot @ Summerslam 1992 in front of his homecrowd and absolutely blew it. If Bret Hart wasnt as capable as he was on this night? I dread to think what would have happened. Vince gave Smith EVERYTHING..... 1)ME in front of the homecrowd 2)The then valuable IC strap 3)Victory over Bret Hart 4)World title bumped from ME spot to accommodate all of the above and Smith repaid him by turning up out of his face on drugs. he was lucky to have a job afterwards and Vince relieved him of the IC strap at the first chance then fired him when he f*cked up again. From 1994-1997 he was also not WWF Championship material. Not Once.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 18, 2024 0:33:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 8:01:58 GMT -5
Billy Gunn. He was huge in 1999 but The Rock ruined his push by burying him at Summerslam. An uncrowned champion in my opinion. Chronic misunderstanding of the word buried here. HHH was chosen as Vince's new 1# heel over Jarrett & Gunn in 1999. He reasoning & choice were 100% correct. Didn't you hear? Any type of losing or anything not 100% shining a person is now considered burying him. Vince gave Smith EVERYTHING..... 1)ME in front of the homecrowd 2)The then valuable IC strap 3)Victory over Bret Hart 4)World title bumped from ME spot to accommodate all of the above and Smith repaid him by turning up out of his face on drugs. he was lucky to have a job afterwards and Vince relieved him of the IC strap at the first chance then fired him when he f*cked up again. Dat thong slip doe! That excuses all doesn't it?! I agree though, as much as I loved Davey. After his problems with drugs and steroids and what not he never could have been trusted with the title, nor would have done any good business with it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 18, 2024 0:33:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 8:29:58 GMT -5
Billy Gunn. He was huge in 1999 but The Rock ruined his push by burying him at Summerslam. An uncrowned champion in my opinion. Chronic misunderstanding of the word buried here. HHH was chosen as Vince's new 1# heel over Jarrett & Gunn in 1999. He reasoning & choice were 100% correct. I can see what he means in the sense that Rock destroyed him on the mic. It was a bad idea to put Billy in a match of wits with The Rock, who is probably the sharpest mic man of all time. It was backstage where Billy really did get buried (by HHH). I still think that he should have had Vince's 99 reign though.
|
|
RollinsFan44
Main Eventer
12 UK Classifieds Refs.
Joined on: Feb 27, 2013 13:05:53 GMT -5
Posts: 4,160
|
Post by RollinsFan44 on Mar 9, 2014 8:41:17 GMT -5
Ted DiBiase, Vader and Razor Ramon.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 18, 2024 0:33:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 9:18:09 GMT -5
Chronic misunderstanding of the word buried here. HHH was chosen as Vince's new 1# heel over Jarrett & Gunn in 1999. He reasoning & choice were 100% correct. I can see what he means in the sense that Rock destroyed him on the mic. It was a bad idea to put Billy in a match of wits with The Rock, who is probably the sharpest mic man of all time. It was backstage where Billy really did get buried (by HHH). I still think that he should have had Vince's 99 reign though. He destroyed Gunn on the mic(as he did to everybody) but he didn't bury him at Summerslam like the OP suggests AF, that's just plain wrong. He lost but was not buried......its not like Rock beat him in 3 minutes and Gunn got no offense in.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 18, 2024 0:33:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 9:26:31 GMT -5
I can see what he means in the sense that Rock destroyed him on the mic. It was a bad idea to put Billy in a match of wits with The Rock, who is probably the sharpest mic man of all time. It was backstage where Billy really did get buried (by HHH). I still think that he should have had Vince's 99 reign though. He destroyed Gunn on the mic(as he did to everybody) but he didn't bury him at Summerslam like the OP suggests AF, that's just plain wrong. He lost but was not buried......its not like Rock beat him in 3 minutes and Gunn got no offense in. Yeah I get that, I'm just saying that he got buried on the mic by him every week up until summerslam, which was foreseeable considering mic work was Billy's only real weakness and Rocky's biggest strength. I mean if anything, being in a big match at a big PPV with The Rock should have elevated Billy. It was just handled badly (for Billy) in the buildup. Of course after Summerslam he had that match on Raw for the title with Triple H and then phased back into the tag division while Vinnie took himself a title reign.
|
|