mrrotten
Don Corleone
The #1 Kaneinite
Posts: 2,066
|
Post by mrrotten on Apr 12, 2008 18:30:29 GMT -5
So now that Cryme Tyme is back, does that mean they're still have that title shot they had won?
|
|
|
|
Post by James McCloud IS John Godot on Apr 12, 2008 18:33:45 GMT -5
Supposedly, they used them on Heat and lost in the past. I'm not a die-hard Heat follower though so take that with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
|
Post by YellowJacketY2J on Apr 12, 2008 21:01:55 GMT -5
I think WWE forgot they ever gave them a title shot. And I mean they forgot right after Cryme Time won the #1 Contender's match.
|
|
|
|
Post by chunkylover53 on Apr 12, 2008 21:30:44 GMT -5
I just Cryme Tyme gets back into the title picture soon. They were in it at the time they were abruptly canned.
|
|
Crappler El 0 M
Dalek
Never Forgets an Octagon
I'm a good R-Truth.
Posts: 58,479
|
Post by Crappler El 0 M on Apr 12, 2008 21:35:57 GMT -5
Why does it seem like all tag matches are non-title matches these days anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Apr 12, 2008 21:38:54 GMT -5
Why does it seem like all tag matches are non-title matches these days anyway? To make actual title defenses more special? To be able to job the champions out repeatedly without having to make them lose the titles? Either would seem like decent reasons, although I'd go with the latter. |
|
Crappler El 0 M
Dalek
Never Forgets an Octagon
I'm a good R-Truth.
Posts: 58,479
|
Post by Crappler El 0 M on Apr 12, 2008 21:43:54 GMT -5
Why does it seem like all tag matches are non-title matches these days anyway? To make actual title defenses more special? To be able to job the champions out repeatedly without having to make them lose the titles? Either would seem like decent reasons, although I'd go with the latter. I wasn't actually questioning the logic of having non-title matches. I think it is old school to have non-title matches to make the actual title matches more special. I was just noticing that it seems like every time the tag champs wrestle it is non-title. Of course I don't follow as closely as I did in the 1980s and 1990s. |
|
|
|
Post by Thank You Shawn on Apr 13, 2008 0:44:15 GMT -5
all day at work I was saying "Money Money, Yeah Yeah"
|
|
|
|
Post by Cactus Jack on Apr 13, 2008 4:31:55 GMT -5
It would be good if they did have it, but they won't (knowing WWE).
|
|
Slim Loves Lily
El Dandy
I'm gonna want the milksteak boiled over hard.
Posts: 8,983
|
Post by Slim Loves Lily on Apr 13, 2008 6:31:35 GMT -5
I was waiting for this thread.....
|
|
|
|
Post by stevierichardsfan on Apr 13, 2008 7:14:20 GMT -5
Aren't londrick nomber one contenders?
|
|
|
|
Post by derrtaysouth95 on Apr 13, 2008 9:16:28 GMT -5
I may be wrong in this, but I thought they had 2 unclaimed title shots?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2008 15:00:10 GMT -5
They sold them
For that money money yeah yeah
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2008 16:49:17 GMT -5
I find the expectation of continuity to be amusing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2008 23:00:01 GMT -5
Why does it seem like all tag matches are non-title matches these days anyway? To make actual title defenses more special? To be able to job the champions out repeatedly without having to make them lose the titles? Either would seem like decent reasons, although I'd go with the latter. Miz/Morrison seem to be winning a lot of their non-title matches |
|
|
|
Post by WWE Trademarked My Name on Apr 13, 2008 23:08:09 GMT -5
Why does it seem like all tag matches are non-title matches these days anyway? Because the champions suck but WWE is trying to get them over as a legit tag team which might require a loss here and there to kick of feuds.  |
|
