TheBadGuyChico
POSSIBLE BAD TRADER
Joined on: Dec 3, 2012 10:34:41 GMT -5
Posts: 1,715
|
Post by TheBadGuyChico on Sept 12, 2017 11:06:15 GMT -5
I've been very confused since Styles lost the title to Cena back at the Rumble, it's been even more confusing since then.
So Styles drops the title to John Cena who drops it to Bray Wyatt, i thought Bray was far to damaged to carry it but i figured they were all in on giving him his due. Well that's not exactly what happened, since then Randy Orton and Jinder Mahal have had reigns. I just don't get it.
After coming in and having an amazing feud with Roman Reigns on PPV, beating Cena and Ambrose, Styles was poised to be one of the most credible champions of recent years, and he was. Why take it off of him though? He's the absolute best wrestler on Smackdown, hell they still use him as such. Imo he's still booked as the man and has been in the more over angles, will Mahal's reign isn't exactly lighting the world on fire.
This is my big problem with WWE and one of the reasons why i just don't watch the shows consistently, they think that the belt makes the wrestler. It doesn't, guys like Mahal ( bless his heart) devalue the title. He's just not there, Sheamus wasn't there, you're either over enough to have a credible reign or you're not. I mean, do they even care about credibility at this point? They don't protect much anymore, i'll never understand why a company craps all over the legitimacy of their own titles. You have a guy that clearly isn't a big draw, a great wrestler, or massively over with the live crowds as a champion, how does this fly in 2017?
AJ is still AJ and his angle with Owens has been the heart of SD these past few months, and i'm sure his next program will be a focal point as well, but it's jarring to see this when another (very inferior talent) is the heavyweight champion. A year long Styles reign would have absolutely have done more for the championship and easily more for business.
How do you guys feel about the main titles being used to experiment with getting guys over, should you have to be worthy enough to hold it first?
|
|
|
|
Post by hbkbigdaddycool on Sept 12, 2017 11:20:36 GMT -5
Because Jinder looks like a Champion in Vince's eyes.
He is tall, big, muscular, and can carry himself in an interview and puts on a great WWE style match.
AJ Styles is who the internet loves, and Vince gave us that last year. Of course he did it as AJ being a heel, which sucked, cause we all love to cheer on AJ. But we can at least rest happy knowing AJ Styles held the WWE Title once in his career.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. PerpetuaLynch Motion on Sept 12, 2017 11:24:02 GMT -5
If we're only giving the title to people deemed worthy than with the way WWE books everyone, there's no one that is "worthy". Everyone is getting 50/50 booking and no one comes out looking particularly great. AJ Styles is fantastic but he's also 9 years older than Jinder. I know the reasons behind Jinder holding the title but isn't it also nice to look at it as them potentially setting themselves up for success when the AJ Styles' and John Cenas of the world retire? AJ has already accomplished more in the WWE than I think most actually expected him to especially his most loyal fans. You could also argue that most wrestlers don't really hit their prime until about 33-34. Jinder isn't there yet but he's been given this chance. I think Jinder has potential and when you compare Jinder now to the Jinder before he won the title I think he's improved in some areas. Still not a great promo, and sure he's not AJ in the ring but not many people are even close to that.
My point is that while the old saying "The title doesn't make the guy, the guy makes the title" is true, I'm willing to sit through the Jinder Mahal experiment. And who knows, maybe Nakamura is going to take the title off him and we'll get Nak Vs AJ for the WWE title sometime soon. If I've learned nothing else following WWE it's that sometimes (not always) being patient can pay off.
|
|
TheBadGuyChico
POSSIBLE BAD TRADER
Joined on: Dec 3, 2012 10:34:41 GMT -5
Posts: 1,715
|
Post by TheBadGuyChico on Sept 12, 2017 11:26:15 GMT -5
Because Jinder looks like a Champion in Vince's eyes. He is tall, big, muscular, and can carry himself in an interview and puts on a great WWE style match. AJ Styles is who the internet loves, and Vince gave us that last year. Of course he did it as AJ being a heel, which sucked, cause we all love to cheer on AJ. But we can at least rest happy knowing AJ Styles held the WWE Title once in his career. If Mahal is so great, why is Smackdown built around Styles, Owens, and Shane McMahon? I mean Styles and Shane are babyfaces, but Owens is getting more TV time during Jinder's reign. In my eyes that kills the belt, if the show can't be built around you, you don't deserve a run. The show when built around AJ was working and it's still working now. He's added more prestige to the US title as the top title on SD than Mahal, that is terrible imo. |
|
TheBadGuyChico
POSSIBLE BAD TRADER
Joined on: Dec 3, 2012 10:34:41 GMT -5
Posts: 1,715
|
Post by TheBadGuyChico on Sept 12, 2017 11:34:18 GMT -5
If we're only giving the title to people deemed worthy than with the way WWE books everyone, there's no one that is "worthy". Everyone is getting 50/50 booking and no one comes out looking particularly great. AJ Styles is fantastic but he's also 9 years older than Jinder. I know the reasons behind Jinder holding the title but isn't it also nice to look at it as them potentially setting themselves up for success when the AJ Styles' and John Cenas of the world retire? AJ has already accomplished more in the WWE than I think most actually expected him to especially his most loyal fans. You could also argue that most wrestlers don't really hit their prime until about 33-34. Jinder isn't there yet but he's been given this chance. I think Jinder has potential and when you compare Jinder now to the Jinder before he won the title I think he's improved in some areas. Still not a great promo, and sure he's not AJ in the ring but not many people are even close to that. My point is that while the old saying "The title doesn't make the guy, the guy makes the title" is true, I'm willing to sit through the Jinder Mahal experiment. And who knows, maybe Nakamura is going to take the title off him and we'll get Nak Vs AJ for the WWE title sometime soon. If I've learned nothing else following WWE it's that sometimes (not always) being patient can pay off. It's just the principal to me, how can you carry that title around when another can not only wrestle circles around you, but is a much better promo? If thought Jinder had anymore upside on AJ outside of simply being the younger man, but really he doesn't. It would have been better for everybody to take the belt off of AJ like they did from babyface to a heel, so AJ could go with a full on face turn and regain his title. It's simple from there you build up your stable of heels and babyfaces until one of them can carry the ball. Instead the take the title off of AJ only for him to still be carrying the brand, well along with KO. Token champions are just sad. |
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Sept 12, 2017 11:36:14 GMT -5
Why is Mahal champion over the majority of the roster?
In all seriousness, it's obviously because of India. That's WWE's justification, and it isn't good enough, but that's what it is.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 14, 2024 2:00:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 11:39:22 GMT -5
I really don't mind Mahal as champion. The best guy doesn't have to be the champion.
Was Lesnar the best guy in 2002? No.
Was Cena the best guy in 2005? No.
Was Batista the best guy in 2009? No.
Sometimes you have to take a chance and create some stars in the process.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. PerpetuaLynch Motion on Sept 12, 2017 11:42:58 GMT -5
They've also created an atmosphere where people that in my mind previously never had a chance to be the WWE Champion now feasibly could. I'll be arguing with someone about, say Sami Zayn. And I can almost always inevitably end an argument with "If Jinder Mahal can be WWE Champion, why can't Sami Zayn?".
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 14, 2024 2:00:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 11:46:52 GMT -5
The Indian market.
|
|
TheBadGuyChico
POSSIBLE BAD TRADER
Joined on: Dec 3, 2012 10:34:41 GMT -5
Posts: 1,715
|
Post by TheBadGuyChico on Sept 12, 2017 11:53:37 GMT -5
I really don't mind Mahal as champion. The best guy doesn't have to be the champion. Was Lesnar the best guy in 2002? No. Was Cena the best guy in 2005? No. Was Batista the best guy in 2009? No. Sometimes you have to take a chance and create some stars in the process. I never implied it was all about talent, being over and selling tickets is superior. I ask that my world champion be special in some form. Hell i'm a huge Hulk Hogan fan, i'm no work-rate snob. If you don't fall on the Bob Backlund or Hulk Hogan side of world champions at the very least, i'm not interested. Preferably (today) we would see a guy between the two extremes that those two hof'ers represent. Jinder does not. He's not a master of anything, and he hasn't proven he can draw on ANY level. As far as your list goes Brock Lesnar circa 2002 : Good god the man came in as the most credible threat i've ever seen in my lifetime. I'm down to believe that he can conceivably beat anybody from day one, just a special athlete. Lesnar had the wrestling world buzzing, he was a kamikaze. That match with the Rock had me on pins and needles, and the dude was awesome!!! He was overqualified if that's possible. Cena circa 2005: Best? Maybe not. Over? Very much. He also had some highly credible reigns with the US title and had established himself as both a heel and a babyface. I'd argue that he was the most charismatic wrestling in WWE and the guy moved merch before he won it all. Obvious choice. Batista in 2009? Why 2009? He was built up masterfully in 2005 i'll say that and he went on to do great things for years. Should he have won every single title he's had, i dunno, but he's box office. Literally now. I'm not sure how these guys have anything in common with Jinder, they all had vastly superior resumes. Sheamus is exactly who i think of when i think of Jinder, hell throw in Jack Swagger while we're at it. Guys who hadn't carried much of anything off but we're hot shotted to the world title. You want to experiment, do it with the secondary titles! |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 14, 2024 2:00:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 11:59:54 GMT -5
I really don't mind Mahal as champion. The best guy doesn't have to be the champion. Was Lesnar the best guy in 2002? No. Was Cena the best guy in 2005? No. Was Batista the best guy in 2009? No. Sometimes you have to take a chance and create some stars in the process. I never implied it was all about talent, being over and selling tickets is superior. I ask that my world champion be special in some form. Hell i'm a huge Hulk Hogan fan, i'm no work-rate snob. If you don't fall on the Bob Backlund or Hulk Hogan side of world champions at the very least, i'm not interested. Preferably (today) we would see a guy between the two extremes that those two hof'ers represent. Jinder does not. He's not a master of anything, and he hasn't proven he can draw on ANY level. As far as your list goes Brock Lesnar circa 2002 : Good god the man came in as the most credible threat i've ever seen in my lifetime. I'm down to believe that he can conceivably beat anybody from day one, just a special athlete. Lesnar had the wrestling world buzzing, he was a kamikaze. That match with the Rock had me on pins and needles, and the dude was awesome!!! He was overqualified if that's possible. Cena circa 2005: Best? Maybe not. Over? Very much. He also had some highly credible reigns with the US title and had established himself as both a heel and a babyface. I'd argue that he was the most charismatic wrestling in WWE and the guy moved merch before he won it all. Obvious choice. Batista in 2009? Why 2009? He was built up masterfully in 2005 i'll say that and he went on to do great things for years. Should he have won every single title he's had, i dunno, but he's box office. Literally now. I'm not sure how these guys have anything in common with Jinder, they all had vastly superior resumes. Sheamus is exactly who i think of when i think of Jinder, hell throw in Jack Swagger while we're at it. Guys who hadn't carried much of anything off but we're hot shotted to the world title. You want to experiment, do it with the secondary titles! Lesnar in 2002 wasn't even over, though. And was about as credible as Jinder is now. It wasn't until that Summerslam night that the crowd kind of got behind him. I don't care for Jinder, but I prefer him to be champion over someone like AJ or Nakamura if it helps build another credible main event talent that can be inserted in any main event in the future if needed. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Sept 12, 2017 12:06:48 GMT -5
It gets them exposure in India, it created a shocking moment, and for the first time in a while, they have a heel who people genuinely want to see lose the title.
|
|
TheBadGuyChico
POSSIBLE BAD TRADER
Joined on: Dec 3, 2012 10:34:41 GMT -5
Posts: 1,715
|
Post by TheBadGuyChico on Sept 12, 2017 12:09:57 GMT -5
I never implied it was all about talent, being over and selling tickets is superior. I ask that my world champion be special in some form. Hell i'm a huge Hulk Hogan fan, i'm no work-rate snob. If you don't fall on the Bob Backlund or Hulk Hogan side of world champions at the very least, i'm not interested. Preferably (today) we would see a guy between the two extremes that those two hof'ers represent. Jinder does not. He's not a master of anything, and he hasn't proven he can draw on ANY level. As far as your list goes Brock Lesnar circa 2002 : Good god the man came in as the most credible threat i've ever seen in my lifetime. I'm down to believe that he can conceivably beat anybody from day one, just a special athlete. Lesnar had the wrestling world buzzing, he was a kamikaze. That match with the Rock had me on pins and needles, and the dude was awesome!!! He was overqualified if that's possible. Cena circa 2005: Best? Maybe not. Over? Very much. He also had some highly credible reigns with the US title and had established himself as both a heel and a babyface. I'd argue that he was the most charismatic wrestling in WWE and the guy moved merch before he won it all. Obvious choice. Batista in 2009? Why 2009? He was built up masterfully in 2005 i'll say that and he went on to do great things for years. Should he have won every single title he's had, i dunno, but he's box office. Literally now. I'm not sure how these guys have anything in common with Jinder, they all had vastly superior resumes. Sheamus is exactly who i think of when i think of Jinder, hell throw in Jack Swagger while we're at it. Guys who hadn't carried much of anything off but we're hot shotted to the world title. You want to experiment, do it with the secondary titles! Lesnar in 2002 wasn't even over, though. And was about as credible as Jinder is now. It wasn't until that Summerslam night that the crowd kind of got behind him. I don't care for Jinder, but I prefer him to be champion over someone like AJ or Nakamura if it helps build another credible main event talent that can be inserted in any main event in the future if needed. I don't know how you can say Brock Lesnar wasn't over in 2002, had any of us seen a human being like him at that point? It's like seeing Lebron James in high school or whenever you first saw him..... that's something else. Brock was also built as well as i've ever seen, without any secondary title reigns. He comes in with an incredible mouth piece, he destroys the mid card scene in his debut, crushes the Hardyz in a little angle, beat Bubba in a stiff little feud (good stuff for the kid ), wins the KOTR, destroys Hulk Hogan, and *exhales*......... finally defeats the Rock for the title. I'm sorry but i was a believer after all of that, considering he's the greatest physical specimen i've ever seen in 25+ years of watching wrestling. What has Jinder accomplished again? Brock was built up betterbecause and had the best upside of any superstar ever. 3MB, comes back jacked and doing more TV jobs, gets an extremely mediocre new gimmick, wins the title. That isn't exactly WWE championship worthy. Can the man even get some real heat before he touches a title that Hulk Hogan and Steve Austin carried to global success? |
|
|
|
Post by PJ on Sept 12, 2017 12:17:36 GMT -5
This. The WWE was expanding into India so he put the title on Jinder and will be keeping it on him until they get their footing in that market. |
|
Revy
Superstar
Joined on: Oct 12, 2011 22:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 707
|
Post by Revy on Sept 12, 2017 12:24:43 GMT -5
You don't always give people what they want. AJ will be champion again, they are just going in this direction right now.
|
|
hbkowns
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 15, 2011 23:33:52 GMT -5
Posts: 4,286
|
Post by hbkowns on Sept 12, 2017 12:29:30 GMT -5
I really don't mind Mahal as champion. The best guy doesn't have to be the champion. Was Lesnar the best guy in 2002? No. Was Cena the best guy in 2005? No. Was Batista the best guy in 2009? No. Sometimes you have to take a chance and create some stars in the process. Is Jinder the best? No Is Jinder one of the worst? Yes To compare those guys to Jinder is hilarious. At least those guys could all hang at the time and gave great performances. Cena had good matches with Angle and Jericho in 2005. Batista hung with Triple H and Eddie Guerrero. Brock was arguably the best thing in 2002 other than HBK's return. And Jinder?.... who has he had a good match with since winning the title in May? Absolutely nobody. |
|
hbkowns
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 15, 2011 23:33:52 GMT -5
Posts: 4,286
|
Post by hbkowns on Sept 12, 2017 12:32:13 GMT -5
I never implied it was all about talent, being over and selling tickets is superior. I ask that my world champion be special in some form. Hell i'm a huge Hulk Hogan fan, i'm no work-rate snob. If you don't fall on the Bob Backlund or Hulk Hogan side of world champions at the very least, i'm not interested. Preferably (today) we would see a guy between the two extremes that those two hof'ers represent. Jinder does not. He's not a master of anything, and he hasn't proven he can draw on ANY level. As far as your list goes Brock Lesnar circa 2002 : Good god the man came in as the most credible threat i've ever seen in my lifetime. I'm down to believe that he can conceivably beat anybody from day one, just a special athlete. Lesnar had the wrestling world buzzing, he was a kamikaze. That match with the Rock had me on pins and needles, and the dude was awesome!!! He was overqualified if that's possible. Cena circa 2005: Best? Maybe not. Over? Very much. He also had some highly credible reigns with the US title and had established himself as both a heel and a babyface. I'd argue that he was the most charismatic wrestling in WWE and the guy moved merch before he won it all. Obvious choice. Batista in 2009? Why 2009? He was built up masterfully in 2005 i'll say that and he went on to do great things for years. Should he have won every single title he's had, i dunno, but he's box office. Literally now. I'm not sure how these guys have anything in common with Jinder, they all had vastly superior resumes. Sheamus is exactly who i think of when i think of Jinder, hell throw in Jack Swagger while we're at it. Guys who hadn't carried much of anything off but we're hot shotted to the world title. You want to experiment, do it with the secondary titles! Lesnar in 2002 wasn't even over, though. And was about as credible as Jinder is now. It wasn't until that Summerslam night that the crowd kind of got behind him. I don't care for Jinder, but I prefer him to be champion over someone like AJ or Nakamura if it helps build another credible main event talent that can be inserted in any main event in the future if needed. 2002 Lesnar was as credible as 2017 Jinder? Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha....ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah This has to be a joke. |
|
|
|
Post by Chip on Sept 12, 2017 12:33:50 GMT -5
because 1.3 billion people
|
|
|
|
Post by Sizzle on Sept 12, 2017 13:16:10 GMT -5
If what the people wanted was what was actually going to happen, AJ Styles would be champion forever.
The whole reason for Mahal's push seems to be for the Indian market.
|
|
hoshal13
Jobber
Joined on: Oct 19, 2015 22:39:41 GMT -5
Posts: 25 
|
Post by hoshal13 on Sept 12, 2017 14:13:43 GMT -5
He's from India. Case closed.
|
|
