|
|
Post by Kay Faban on Jul 3, 2010 12:03:12 GMT -5
If win/loss records really counted for something, whose careers would be perceived most differently?
For example; Shawn Michaels, Mr. WrestleMania, has a losing record at the grandest stage of them all. Doesn't sound like he deserves the nickname if win/loss records really counted.
Are there example of a guy that always seemed to win, but was never able to get passed the mid-card because he couldn't get over?
|
|
|
|
Post by KAMALARAMBO: BOOMSHAKALAKA!!! on Jul 3, 2010 12:07:59 GMT -5
If win/loss records really counted for something, whose careers would be perceived most differently? For example; Shawn Michaels, Mr. WrestleMania, has a losing record at the grandest stage of them all. Doesn't sound like he deserves the nickname if win/loss records really counted. Are there example of a guy that always seemed to win, but was never able to get passed the mid-card because he couldn't get over? I think the argument could be made for Tatanka though he was upper midcard and was pretty over. Still, despite all his wins he never really got a main event push. |
|
|
|
Post by Kay Faban on Jul 3, 2010 13:17:45 GMT -5
Tatanka is a great choice.
The topic of this thread is a little harder than I thought it would be.
|
|
Thaal Sinestro
Hank Scorpio
In Brightest Night, In Blackest Day. Etc.
Posts: 5,012
|
Post by Thaal Sinestro on Jul 3, 2010 13:24:46 GMT -5
John Cena would be in the main event forever..... Wait D:
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Dave on Jul 3, 2010 13:31:55 GMT -5
Velocity Paul London would have been hot shotted big time.
|
|
|
|
Post by thuschongswing on Jul 3, 2010 13:34:36 GMT -5
Y'know the Bella Twins?
Yeah. Brie Bella would be WWE Champion by now.
|
|
EJS
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 18,857
|
Post by EJS on Jul 3, 2010 22:59:31 GMT -5
Hornswoggle would be the top guy in the company.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Legend on Jul 4, 2010 1:50:05 GMT -5
Hornswoggle would be the top guy in the company. Shit!! you beat me to it!!!!! I think Chavo wouldnt be in WWE if it counted. He has had so many loss to Hornswoggle in the past. Kofi would be WWE champion. |
|
|
|
Post by Kris Kobain on Jul 4, 2010 2:01:04 GMT -5
Shawn isn't called Mr. Wrestlemania because of wins and losses though. It's because of the quality of matches he puts on. Even with the loses the quality of matches stays the same.
As mentioned Tatanka and Hornswoggle would be the top two guys in the company. Drew would have been a main eventer for awhile.
|
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Jul 4, 2010 2:05:23 GMT -5
Daniel Bryan's WWE career would've been cut short by a losing record instead of a tie choke.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Legend on Jul 4, 2010 2:09:40 GMT -5
Daniel Bryan's WWE career would've been cut short by a losing record instead of a tie choke. LOL true. Well played sir. |
|
Schemer
Don Corleone
Total class wit' a capital K!
Posts: 1,950
|
Post by Schemer on Jul 4, 2010 2:28:15 GMT -5
Barry Horowitz would've been fired years before 1995
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Emoticon Man, TF Fan on Jul 4, 2010 12:33:31 GMT -5
Shawn isn't called Mr. Wrestlemania because of wins and losses though. It's because of the quality of matches he puts on. Even with the loses the quality of matches stays the same. As mentioned Tatanka and Hornswoggle would be the top two guys in the company. Drew would have been a main eventer for awhile. I'm pretty sure the OP knows that. And he has a point in the context of this "what if" discussion, too: if win/loss records were what mattered and not match quality, HBK's career at Wrestlemania wouldn't be perceived as being so impressive. |
|
|
|
Post by who throws a shoe?! on Jul 4, 2010 15:19:35 GMT -5
Shawn isn't called Mr. Wrestlemania because of wins and losses though. It's because of the quality of matches he puts on. Even with the loses the quality of matches stays the same. As mentioned Tatanka and Hornswoggle would be the top two guys in the company. Drew would have been a main eventer for awhile. I'm pretty sure the OP knows that. And he has a point in the context of this "what if" discussion, too: if win/loss records were what mattered and not match quality, HBK's career at Wrestlemania wouldn't be perceived as being so impressive. Besides, wasn't it Shawn himself who gave himself the name Mr. Wrestlemania? I might be wrong, but I don't remember anyone using the term before him. |
|
|
|
Post by primetime110 on Jul 4, 2010 15:57:16 GMT -5
Daniel Bryan's WWE career would've been cut short by a losing record instead of a tie choke. Beat me to it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2010 16:18:35 GMT -5
Undertaker would be known as specialist of the 1 on 1 and Casket Match (I think?) match. He's lost more Hell in a Cell/Buried Alive matches than won obviously.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Jul 4, 2010 18:18:51 GMT -5
Yoshi Tatsu would have way more TV time than he does now.
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899 
|
Post by comahan on Jul 4, 2010 18:22:10 GMT -5
Very, very few heels would ever be considered successful, because for the most part, heels lose on a constant basis
|
|
|
|
Post by flatsdomino on Jul 5, 2010 1:16:07 GMT -5
Christian would have been like Goldberg last year. Also, I recall a point where Punk really rearely ever lost, around '07-'08. Not that he ever really beat anyone important, but still...
|
|
|
|
Post by Kris Kobain on Jul 5, 2010 1:47:21 GMT -5
Shawn isn't called Mr. Wrestlemania because of wins and losses though. It's because of the quality of matches he puts on. Even with the loses the quality of matches stays the same. As mentioned Tatanka and Hornswoggle would be the top two guys in the company. Drew would have been a main eventer for awhile. I'm pretty sure the OP knows that. And he has a point in the context of this "what if" discussion, too: if win/loss records were what mattered and not match quality, HBK's career at Wrestlemania wouldn't be perceived as being so impressive. I stick by my post. |
|
