|
|
Post by The Brain on Jun 27, 2017 14:50:45 GMT -5
Another thing I forgot to mention in my original post. Remember when Bret Hart vacated the title on nitro because he didn't like that Goldberg was screwed at starcade 99. Later that night he wins the title back when Hall and Nash help him and reform the nwo. Makes no sense! Also the ONLY reason Jeff Jarrett was wcw champion was because he was Russo's friend. He won the title at Spring Stampede lost it to DDP a week later before Aruquette won the tag match. A lot of you are giving your thoughts on David Arquette winning the belt, but that's not what I asked. My question was if you thought the wcw title was so devalued by the time they put it on Aruqette that in hindsight it doesn't really matter that it happened? The wcw title did not mean anything when Arquette got it. It was a meaningless belt because of the horrid booking decisions that started with the finger poke of doom. From Ric Flair winning it in 1991 until Goldberg lost it to Nash, it was a prestigious title. After the Finger poke of doom it was a prop that was passed around every little bit! What did you expect from WCW during those years especially?
Bottom line I agree the WCW World Title picture during those last few years with the frequent changes was a mess but a celebrity should NEVER become champion under no circumstances. I don't care if it's to promote a move or not. That to me is really diminishing a once prestigious title.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emerald Enthusiast on Jun 27, 2017 22:51:20 GMT -5
you have to admit the wcw title was completely meaningless before he was given the title. At that point that title had lost so much prestige it's not even funny. After Goldberg lost to Nash at Starcade 98 the wcw title went downhill from there. I mean who can forget(but would really love to) the finger poke of doom? What about Flair winning it from Hogan at Uncensored 99 in a lame finish then losing it to DDP a month later? On one episode of Nitro DDP lost the title at 9 pm and won it back at 11 pm! Macho Man won it in a tag match and lost it one night later to Hogan. Goldberg won it from Sting at Havoc 99 and then was stripped a day later(forgot the reason) thus leading to that lame tournament. Then in early 2000 I think there was one episode of Thunder where Nash stripped Sid of the title declaring him the champion, but then Sid just won it back by the end of the night! So while Arquette winning it was the worst booking decision ever, did it even really matter at that point who was champion because of all the crap that happened to the title between Goldberg losing it and Arquette winning it? You're right in the assertion that WCW had diminished the significance of their title. That was yet another byproduct of too many people swaying Bischoff with ideas rather than someone with a distinct vision laying the groundwork for meaningful matches and big future stars. What made the Arquette-as-champ blunder arguably the worst during WCW's death rattle was that he was a non-wrestler. Even had he not been a smaller than average man, or been a bigger Hollywood star, or had the title not been involved, it was still a horrid booking decision to have him booked to go over in any match. There are rare occasions when a legitimate combat sport talent can have a storyline set up to have him or her win without damaging the wrestler (see Akebono vs Big Show), but non-wrestlers deflate the entire illusion pro wrestling. We're supposed to be "marking out", if only for awhile, by buying into the construct of the story. When that ends with a joe schmo like Arquette on the fictional mountain top, it gives the viewer no incentive to keep believing that the regular participants are special. |
|
|
|
Post by PJ on Jun 28, 2017 13:51:47 GMT -5
Another thing I forgot to mention in my original post. Remember when Bret Hart vacated the title on nitro because he didn't like that Goldberg was screwed at starcade 99. Later that night he wins the title back when Hall and Nash help him and reform the nwo. Makes no sense! Also the ONLY reason Jeff Jarrett was wcw champion was because he was Russo's friend. He won the title at Spring Stampede lost it to DDP a week later before Aruquette won the tag match. A lot of you are giving your thoughts on David Arquette winning the belt, but that's not what I asked. My question was if you thought the wcw title was so devalued by the time they put it on Aruqette that in hindsight it doesn't really matter that it happened? The wcw title did not mean anything when Arquette got it. It was a meaningless belt because of the horrid booking decisions that started with the finger poke of doom. From Ric Flair winning it in 1991 until Goldberg lost it to Nash, it was a prestigious title. After the Finger poke of doom it was a prop that was passed around every little bit! No it still had meaning and prestige even with the stupid hot potato. But having a celebrity like Arquette win the title over their so called main event wrestlers did way worse damage than any match prior to it. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 29, 2024 22:39:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 13:57:30 GMT -5
It worked for what it was meant to do.
And he will always be a class act in my eyes for what he did with the money he got from his run.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Brain on Jun 28, 2017 13:59:07 GMT -5
Another thing I forgot to mention in my original post. Remember when Bret Hart vacated the title on nitro because he didn't like that Goldberg was screwed at starcade 99. Later that night he wins the title back when Hall and Nash help him and reform the nwo. Makes no sense! Also the ONLY reason Jeff Jarrett was wcw champion was because he was Russo's friend. He won the title at Spring Stampede lost it to DDP a week later before Aruquette won the tag match. A lot of you are giving your thoughts on David Arquette winning the belt, but that's not what I asked. My question was if you thought the wcw title was so devalued by the time they put it on Aruqette that in hindsight it doesn't really matter that it happened? The wcw title did not mean anything when Arquette got it. It was a meaningless belt because of the horrid booking decisions that started with the finger poke of doom. From Ric Flair winning it in 1991 until Goldberg lost it to Nash, it was a prestigious title. After the Finger poke of doom it was a prop that was passed around every little bit! No it still had meaning and prestige even with the stupid hot potato. But having a celebrity like Arquette win the title over their so called main event wrestlers did way worse damage than any match prior to it. This. |
|
drgreenevil
Superstar
Joined on: Jun 10, 2012 18:49:14 GMT -5
Posts: 820
|
Post by drgreenevil on Jul 11, 2017 18:38:55 GMT -5
Yeah, David Arquette winning the championship was stupid. But it was fun and unexpected. Stupid but fun. I remember the side skits of his then wife Courtney Cox asking why he was doing all of this. For me, the worst part of the angle was his out of nowhere heel turn at Slamboree. IMO, that whole swerve seemed out of character and place for what they had built up to that point. It was how the angle ended, not the angle itself that caused the hatred of it. They had already showed how much of a bumbling idiot and fluke champ he was, so Jarrett taking him out early and him having no part of the match with Double J still taking the title would have still worked. But still, I'd buy a David Arquette Elite figure  A Bischoff vs Arquette 2pack? Is it wrong that I don't see that pack pegwarming as hard as some of the other recent superstar ones have lately? |
|
|
|
Post by Bandalero on Jul 12, 2017 12:29:30 GMT -5
A lot of you are giving your thoughts on David Arquette winning the belt, but that's not what I asked. My question was if you thought the wcw title was so devalued by the time they put it on Aruqette that in hindsight it doesn't really matter that it happened? The wcw title did not mean anything when Arquette got it. It was a meaningless belt because of the horrid booking decisions that started with the finger poke of doom. From Ric Flair winning it in 1991 until Goldberg lost it to Nash, it was a prestigious title. After the Finger poke of doom it was a prop that was passed around every little bit! Look I do agree with your sentiment, but in hindsight, no matter how devalued the title was at that point BEFORE Aruqette, it still mattered...and angered wrestling fans because of yet another terrible booking decision. It was a short-term gain (infamous notoriety) for long-term pain (wcw folding eventually and hurting the credibility of wrestling). Aruqette had no business being there, and to his credit he's been on record saying even he hated the idea and donated his winnings to charity which is cool and all - but I can't really fault the dude, which wrestling fan wouldn't want to be given an opportunity like that even for a fleeting second? I fault that bastard Vince Russo who should be banned from anything to do with wrestling. But this is NO different than when an outside athlete from boxing, sumo, UFC, football, comes in an goes over the wrestler. The boys hate it. This instance was actually worst because it was a 150 lbs C-list actor! Problem is, his name is now synonymous with a 100 year title lineage. I don't care how worthless you or I thought the belt was at that point in time. When people look back on the history of the NWA/WCW title, his name will be in there. Okay, I get it's not a lineage as historic as say the Presidency or anything, but for us wrestling fans, the NWA/WCW lineage might as well be equivalent in our eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by Lego Customs! on Aug 2, 2017 9:09:46 GMT -5
Devalued, yes. Meaningless, no. I don't think the title was too far gone after the finger poke of doom to have some prestige restored if the correct booking decisions were made but sadly, Russo and his poisonous booking put an end to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Artie Kendall on Aug 2, 2017 12:13:28 GMT -5
Time to drop my favorite stat about the WCW World Heavyweight Championship - 18 different official title reigns in 2000.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 29, 2024 22:39:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2017 12:09:55 GMT -5
Time to drop my favorite stat about the WCW World Heavyweight Championship - 18 different official title reigns in 2000. Yup because to Vince Russo "it's just a prop and since wrestling isn't real, nobody really wins it".
I don't know if Russo was the one who wrote it because he left after it happened(after Souled out 2000), but remember that one episode of nitro where Sid won the title by beating a Harris twin and Kevin Nash? The next night on Thunder Nash said that since it was the wrong twin brother he is stripping Sid of the title and making himself champion. Then Sid beat Nash for the title later that night. I think that's the shorter version of a long story I read in death of wcw.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lego Customs! on Aug 3, 2017 17:06:58 GMT -5
Time to drop my favorite stat about the WCW World Heavyweight Championship - 18 different official title reigns in 2000. Yup because to Vince Russo "it's just a prop and since wrestling isn't real, nobody really wins it".
I don't know if Russo was the one who wrote it because he left after it happened(after Souled out 2000), but remember that one episode of nitro where Sid won the title by beating a Harris twin and Kevin Nash? The next night on Thunder Nash said that since it was the wrong twin brother he is stripping Sid of the title and making himself champion. Then Sid beat Nash for the title later that night. I think that's the shorter version of a long story I read in death of wcw.
That's still a better bit of booking than the Nash-CM Punk text message angle. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 29, 2024 22:39:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2017 8:18:26 GMT -5
David Arquette was bad, but Vince McMahon winning the WWF title was way worse.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 29, 2024 22:39:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 9:11:24 GMT -5
David Arquette was bad, but Vince McMahon winning the WWF title was way worse. Are you kidding me? How so? |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 29, 2024 22:39:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 9:35:28 GMT -5
David Arquette was bad, but Vince McMahon winning the WWF title was way worse. Are you kidding me? How so? At the very least Arquette winning the title was used as a promotional tool, and it got people talking. WCW was already in a downward spiral, so at least it served some purpose. I'm not defending it, because it was dumb. But Vince was WAY worse. Vince was a nearly 60 year old promoter who did it just because. It was in the peak of the WWF's popularity and when the belt wasn't being hot potatoed. It still had a huge amount of prestige and meaning. Legit contenders like Shamrock, Jarrett, Owen or Billy never got it, which made title changes and world champions mean that much more. Vince marked the first totally unworthy world champion, the angle was a mess and it was forgotten about within weeks. It was all downhill from there. He arguably devalued that belt more than anyone else ever has, or ever will to any belt. To the extent where we're at a point where the world championship means absolutely nothing. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 29, 2024 22:39:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 11:53:11 GMT -5
Shamrock and Owen maybe, but Jarrett and Billy were definitely not wwe champion material! Only reason Jarrett was champion in wcw was because he was Russo's friend. I can't believe you think having a 160 pound actor being a world champion is better than having a 6'4 or 6'5 guy with a strong build, a wrestling character, and someone who was more or less a wwf legend(and not only because he owned the company)be a world champion.
|
|
