|
Post by Arturo Classico on Jun 18, 2008 20:53:36 GMT -5
Okay so ever since Wrestlemania I haven't really been watching WWE programming especially Smackdown but can someone explain to me why they're adding a second woman's title?
|
|
EJS
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 18,857
|
Post by EJS on Jun 18, 2008 20:54:58 GMT -5
Because they have about as many capable wrestlers on Smackdown these days as they do on Raw.
Of course it would be better to put them all on one show...
|
|
|
Post by Tyfo on Jun 18, 2008 20:56:23 GMT -5
So the women on Smackdown actually have a purpose when having matches.
|
|
|
Post by Arturo Classico on Jun 18, 2008 20:56:58 GMT -5
Because they have about as many capable wrestlers on Smackdown these days as they do on Raw. Of course it would be better to put them all on one show... Well why can't they challenge Mickie James for the title? I mean Ashley did that when she was on Smackdown and the Raw woman's title scene is pretty bad, so why add another woman's title?
|
|
EJS
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 18,857
|
Post by EJS on Jun 18, 2008 20:58:44 GMT -5
Because they have about as many capable wrestlers on Smackdown these days as they do on Raw. Of course it would be better to put them all on one show... Well why can't they challenge Mickie James for the title? I mean Ashley did that when she was on Smackdown and the Raw woman's title scene is pretty bad, so why add another woman's title? Why have two of every other title? It's not something I like, but it's the way WWE wants the brands.
|
|
|
Post by Arturo Classico on Jun 18, 2008 21:05:44 GMT -5
Well why can't they challenge Mickie James for the title? I mean Ashley did that when she was on Smackdown and the Raw woman's title scene is pretty bad, so why add another woman's title? Why have two of every other title? It's not something I like, but it's the way WWE wants the brands. yeah I guess thats my problem with WWE lately. I mean titles used to have the masquerade of meaning something. But with having three world titles, two midcard title, two tag team titles and now two woman titles is just ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips Has Left on Jun 18, 2008 21:07:28 GMT -5
So the women on Smackdown actually have a purpose when having matches. Excuse me, but when did "jiggling" not count as a purpose?
|
|
|
Post by ironfan on Jun 18, 2008 21:08:45 GMT -5
They should have two intercontinental titles and two US titles.
Forget "Night Of Champions", lets have FEDERATION OF CHAMPIONS!
Every match is a title match!
|
|
|
Post by Lenny: Smooth like Keith Stone on Jun 18, 2008 21:47:59 GMT -5
I'm guessing that they want to push Natalya really strong, but they also want to push Mickie strong. Rather than placing both women on the same show and making a feud that would no doubt get over, they are doing this instead.
|
|
|
Post by acressl on Jun 18, 2008 21:54:20 GMT -5
I hate all these dual titles, I really do. What's the point of having two women's champions when there's only a handful or two of women around and not all of them are really wrestlers? They should add a third then just to keep things interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Jun 18, 2008 21:58:00 GMT -5
They should have two intercontinental titles and two US titles. Forget "Night Of Champions", lets have FEDERATION OF CHAMPIONS! Every match is a title match! They're not far from it!
|
|
|
Post by Next Level was WRONG on Jun 18, 2008 22:00:55 GMT -5
They should have two intercontinental titles and two US titles. Forget "Night Of Champions", lets have FEDERATION OF CHAMPIONS! Every match is a title match! Make all the titles available under 24/7 rules, and you've got my dream fed.
|
|
|
Post by acressl on Jun 18, 2008 22:09:36 GMT -5
They'll start having title for title for title for title for title matches where one guy has three belts and the other two. Oh and they're both also one of the four sets of tag champs but that doesn't factor into tonight's match.
|
|
|
Post by skiller on Jun 18, 2008 23:45:33 GMT -5
They could just allow the Women's title to be defended on all brands. It's not like Mickie's really busy with challengers these days.
|
|
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Jun 18, 2008 23:50:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Jun 18, 2008 23:54:10 GMT -5
At this rate, the WWE will have more champions than challengers before too long.
|
|
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Jun 18, 2008 23:56:13 GMT -5
At this rate, the WWE will have more champions than challengers before too long. You mean they dont already?
|
|
|
Post by ghettooverlord on Jun 19, 2008 0:26:59 GMT -5
Why have two of every other title? It's not something I like, but it's the way WWE wants the brands. yeah I guess thats my problem with WWE lately. I mean titles used to have the masquerade of meaning something. But with having three world titles, two midcard title, two tag team titles and now two woman titles is just ridiculous. And the amazing thing is that had Vince actually gone full-scale with the Invasion angle, the idea of having a full slate of WWE and WCW championships wouldn't feel so forced.
|
|
|
Post by skiller on Jun 19, 2008 0:29:42 GMT -5
Yeah and then what after that?
|
|
Ass Dan
King Koopa
Curious about extra lines
Have you seen me?
Posts: 12,259
|
Post by Ass Dan on Jun 19, 2008 0:29:57 GMT -5
They got rid of the Crusierweight Championship for this?
|
|