"Whoever holds the gold...

[Bram wants to 'urt you]

Jan 3, 2011 20:05:59 GMT -5 Djm Doesn't Find You Funny said:

Has anyone ever asked the question of exactly HOW Immortal loses power if someone takes the belt from them?

Perhaps in the same way that Samson lost his strength when they cut his hair off? I mean, Hogan's as bald as a chimp's arse already, so maybe the belts are symbolic of this...

Yea, I know, but it makes just as much sense as the actual storyline

[cabbageboy]

Let's say Dixie wins this court case, which itself does nothing compared to having her own guy (RVD, Angle, whoever) challenge someone from Immortal to a match for control of the company. Is TNA so goofy they don't realize when you do a scenario like this the court case has to be thrown out and ownership needs to be settled at a major PPV?

Again, once Dixie regains control what is to prevent her from simply stripping everyone of their belts? Firing all of Immortal?

The only time I can think of where having a belt meant saving a job was after Survivor Series 2001, where Vince grandfathered the Alliance guys in who had a belt (RVD, Christian, etc.). But in that case, why fire credible talent if you don't have to?

[poi zen rana]

Everytime the topic of why belts equal influence comes up, I always give my opinion. The getting belts to gain power angle, which is one of the classic storyline elements used by nearly every company I can think of, makes sense on the level that one thing a wrestling company does not want is for all of their champions to walk out, take the belts with them, and disrupt the lineage of your titles which is supposed to be very important. Kayfabe-wise it is not simply the belt that makes a champion important. It is the lineage and prestigiousness that makes them symbolize the best of the best. That is why when a company like TNA started, that had no history, they used the NWA name and titles because of the built in legacy. Once TNA had established it's own identity, it could introduce their own titles and begin to build their prestigiousness. Kayfabe-wise things like this are very important. Of course that makes it even stupider when Bischoff did things in the past like strip all titles, but that is really a WCW issue and not a TNA one. 

Then we can get into the whole of issue of champions being the representatives of a company. If every TNA champion left that would be akin to a huge corporation's spokesperson/representative talking bad about the company and leaving, a major blow to the corporation's public image. This is why champions earn the bigger paychecks. This is also why McMahon started his classic feud with Steve Austin. He didn't approve of the champion who would effectively be the face of the company, and didn't trust him. So McMahon tried to get the belt off of him. He wanted to do so by having Austin lose. McMahon could have just stripped him of the title each time he had it, but again kayfabe-wise company owners want to preserve the legacy of their titles. 

EDIT: Really, if we pretend that champions having pull makes no sense, then what was the motivation behind classic angles like McMahon v Austin or NWO v WCW?

[Deleted]

Jan 4, 2011 10:21:27 GMT -5 poi zen rana said:

EDIT: Really, if we pretend that champions having pull makes no sense, then what was the motivation behind classic angles like McMahon v Austin or NWO v WCW?

Because in the kayfaybe of this angle they've brought the concept of litigation into the story.

Bisch is basically saying that having the titles gives you a stronger court case. Which makes no sense.

McMahon vs Austin was about the company's image and McMahon's ego.

NWO v WCW was about people bullying their way into a company through brute force.

This angle has more to do with signing legal documents and "behind the scenes" takeovers.

I guess that's why it has fallen so flat with the fans.

[poi zen rana]

I was just commenting on belts equalling influence. Sure I understand the differences with litigation brought up, but if we are discussing the simple premise of why "belts=power" I think that is a concept that has been around for quite some time. Even with the litigation aspect I believe the premise makes sense in that, the wrestlers with the most influence (because of their championships) would be siding with Bischoff. Does that matter within the court of law? Not really. But if Dixie wins the case she would be alienating every title holder she had, who would side with Bischoff leading again to her possibly having the legacy of her titles erased.

[Deleted]

Jan 4, 2011 11:17:23 GMT -5 poi zen rana said:

I was just commenting on belts equalling influence. Sure I understand the differences with litigation brought up, but if we are discussing the simple premise of why "belts=power" I think that is a concept that has been around for quite some time. Even with the litigation aspect I believe the premise makes sense in that, the wrestlers with the most influence (because of their championships) would be siding with Bischoff. Does that matter within the court of law? Not really. But if Dixie wins the case she would be alienating every title holder she had, who would side with Bischoff leading again to her possibly having the legacy of her titles erased.

Or she could pull a Bischoff and vacate the titles. I guarantee if she did that all the title holders would drop Bischoff in a second for a chance to win the gold again.

I agree that in the kayfaybe sense the titles = more power, but Bischoff wanting "his guys" to hold the titles so Bischoff can retain power in TNA makes no sense.

[poi zen rana]

I see your point. I just believe if we use the "why doesn't boss vacate title of person they don't like" line of reasoning we should apply that to all the other angles that came up during. As in, to use my previous example, why didn't Vince constantly strip Austin of the title? The answer then is the same as now, kayfabe-wise the boss wants to use vacating the title as a last resort option. Vacating the titles disrupts the legacy of those titles and the boss usually tries to make the champ lose rather than the strip the title. Except for the dumbness of Bischoff's move when he stripped all titles which is definitely the exception rather than the rule.

[Deleted]

Jan 4, 2011 11:35:03 GMT -5 poi zen rana said:

I see your point. I just believe if we use the "why doesn't boss vacate title of person they don't like" line of reasoning we should apply that to all the other angles that came up during. As in, to use my previous example, why didn't Vince constantly strip Austin of the title? The answer then is the same as now, kayfabe-wise the boss wants to use vacating the title as a last resort option. Vacating the titles disrupts the legacy of those titles and the boss usually tries to make the champ lose rather than the strip the title. Except for the dumbness of Bischoff's move when he stripped all titles which is definitely the exception rather than the rule.

In the case of Austin/McMahon - stripping Austin of the title would have done nothing.

McMahon wanted to break Austin. Break his spirit and break his hold over the WWE's fans.

Stripping the title would have made Austin come after McMahon harder. That's why McMahon tried to embarass Austin and break him down. He could have just fired him, but then he wouldn't be able to torture.

That was personal. TNA's storyline is mainly business.

[poi zen rana]

I always thought the Vince v Austin feud started when Austin refused to toe the company line and be a corporate champion. That pissed Vince off who then made it his goal to embaress Austin, but also to get the belt off of him. He wanted the belt off Austin so it could be on a corporate champion i.e. The Rock. Maybe we just look at things differently but I don't think belts=influence is anything new. Hence why Bischoff wants to at least have all the champions on his side, so he can threaten to tarnish the entire legacy of TNA if he loses.

[Deleted]

Jan 4, 2011 11:49:56 GMT -5 poi zen rana said:

I always thought the Vince v Austin feud started when Austin refused to toe the company line and be a corporate champion. That pissed Vince off who then made it his goal to embaress Austin, but also to get the belt off of him. He wanted the belt off Austin so it could be on a corporate champion i.e. The Rock. Maybe we just look at things differently but I don't think belts=influence is anything new. Hence why Bischoff wants to at least have all the champions on his side, so he can threaten to tarnish the entire legacy of TNA if he loses.

You can't embarass a guy by stripping him of the title like that. You have to embarass him by making him eat crow, but I see what you're saying.

I'm still not sure how it will tarnish TNA's legacy if he loses. Alienating your champions won't hurt TNA's legacy. If anything the title holders will likely side with whoever's in charge.

They're with Bischoff because he promised them power. If he can't deliver, then they'll split.

Mainly cause they're heels I think.

[poi zen rana]

Yeah. I think in kayfabe we are supposed to see it less as TNA alienating their champions and more as TNA taking a massive PR hit when their champions alienate TNA.

Regardless, the angle is far from kayfabulous. More of a rehashing of a classic angle with a new spin. Not good to me but not offensively devoid of logic.