Hanzo
Dennis Stamp
"You want Cena to go to ECW?!"
Posts: 4,666
|
Post by Hanzo on Mar 22, 2015 12:34:07 GMT -5
I know there's that argument that tournaments don't sell (Personally, I really like them.), but I'm getting sick of the cash ins.
I mean, they worked for Edge because it fit his Ultimate Opportunist character. But for everyone else, it's just a cheap win. I'd much rather see a person win the title for the first time in a well deserved, hard fought title match than some stupid cash in. If you count the WHC as a World title, Punk, Bryan, and Ziggler's first title wins weren't even special. They just handed a referee a briefcase and pinned an injured or unconscious guy. Big whoop.
At least with KoTR, the winner could actually face the champ one-on-one in a major PPV main event.
|
|
FAR5222
El Dandy
Counted 237 Bros.
SWERVE
Got no cookie for it.
Posts: 7,889 
|
Post by FAR5222 on Mar 22, 2015 12:38:38 GMT -5
I know there's that argument that tournaments don't sell (Personally, I really like them.), but I'm getting sick of the cash ins. I mean, they worked for Edge because it fit his Ultimate Opportunist character. But for everyone else, it's just a cheap win. I'd much rather see a person win the title for the first time in a well deserved, hard fought title match than some stupid cash in. If you count the WHC as a World title, Punk, Bryan, and Ziggler's first title wins weren't even special. They just handed a referee a briefcase and pinned an injured or unconscious guy. Big whoop. At least with KoTR, the winner could actually face the champ one-on-one in a major PPV main event. The KOTR could give someone like a Ziggler, Sandow, Miz, Barrett a little main event push that they normally wouldn't get because the company's outlook on them. It can be like a thank you for your services kind of thing. Make the contender look like a million bucks for once in their career. |
|
|
|
Post by bmfjules on Mar 22, 2015 12:50:18 GMT -5
Posting this with a spoiler tag, as it's pretty long but I did a joint column with a friend of mine on a little bloggeroo that went into this very debate. Forgive the lack of images and graphics (I just directly copied and pasted it. {Spoiler} {Spoiler}The BMF's Present: Kings or Bankers, Who Rules The World?
by Stinger
Posted Image
Posted Image
Jules: Hello everyone and welcome to the second edition of ‘The BMF’s Present’… brought to you exclusively by Jules and The Stinger. I’ve remained silent on this topic for one whole column already since it seemed kind of selfish to bring it up then, but I can contain my feelings no longer. When I was first informed that this column series was going to be called ‘The BMF’s Present’ I naturally assumed that sometime during the course of this deal that The Stinger and I would be getting some presents from you people, or at least a (singular) present as the name implied, something substantial enough for the two of us to share sporadically that is, like a Ferrari or at the very least a modestly priced Mazda of some kind, or maybe one of those nifty little segways you see people riding around the park at various times.
However, to my vehement vexation, I awake each morning to discover not so much as a complimentary tube of toothpaste located within the confines of my mailbox. Am I so utterly unappreciated as to not even be worthy of some simple dental hygienic products from you people? If I hadn’t already made a third degree pinky swear to the contrary, I would not write a single word more for any of you, ever again, but for the sake of the series, and so as not to dishonor my family name, I will press on, begrudgingly that is.. So what gives here Stinger, why the false advertising amigo, or are you just hoarding up all the goodies to yourself?
Stinger: You just couldn't keep your mouth shut, could you Jules? You had to go start thinking and asking questions. Yeah, I'm hoarding them all. I got stacks of them, all addressed to "Jules". What about me, what about Stinger? So I took them for myself and kept them, and I don't apologize for it one bit. People steal from me all the time, especially the King, our government and the globalist bankers. I swear, these assholes think they rule the world and can do whatever they want. Both groups feel they are entitled to something someone else has. They're a lot like their wrestling counterparts in that respect. Over the years WWE has had a number of methods for establishing news stars and main-eventers, two of the more famous of these methods were the King of the Ring and more recent the Money in the Bank Ladder Match. So the question this time around is, which event has done the better job of creating main-event talent? In other words, Kings or Bankers, who rules the World (Wrestling Entertainment)?
Posted Image
Jules: I’ve given this topic a fair amount of thought now and I believe I can safely say without any reservation or hesitation whatsoever, that the entity I feel that has been best used for the task of elevating new stars to prominence is… the Money in the Bank ladder match. To begin with I will readily admit that the caliber of stars that have participated in and won the King of the Ring tournament no doubt trumps the caliber of stars that have so far participated in and won the Money in the Bank ladder match. However, I feel upon closer inspection we will see that the careers of those aforementioned stars were, for the most part, not as impacted by their victory in said tournament as the ones who have so far prevailed in the aforementioned Money in the Bank ladder match.
For a deeper analysis of this statement, I thought it might be beneficial to do a case by case study of a couple of the most noted King of the Ring winners from years gone by, and then contrast them, at the end, with a few Money in the Bank success stories. Looking at it logically, I believe this will indubitably show that, in the grand scheme of things, a victory in the King of the Ring tournament, while perhaps more significant than say a ten minute reign with the old WWF Hardcore Title, pales in comparison to the prestige that is currently associated with the holder of the Money in the Bank briefcase.
The first example argument any King of the Ring apologist is likely to bring up is none other than ‘Stone Cold’ Steve Austin’s tournament victory in 1996, and I will grant that if one was going to base this off of how this tournament was to be done idealistically, this would probably be the closest you could get to a perfect ‘test specimen’ for the King of the Ring side of the equation. That being said, while I will give credit where credit is due here, to me, it was not so much the prestige of being hailed the ‘King of the Ring’ that propelled the blazing inferno that was Steve Austin forward after this event, but rather his infamous coronation interview where he first christened the multi-million dollar phrase ‘Austin 3:16’ in reference to his just defeating the self proclaimed born again evangelist Jake ‘The Snake’ Roberts.. So in that regard, it was really Austin’s mic work and his legendary personality that drove him to superstardom, and not the winning of a gimmick tournament to procure a crown he would never even once wear.
In fact, it would be nearly a full two full years in between the winning of said event and the capturing of his first world championship and his ascension into permanent main event status. In the end it was not so much winning King of the Ring that truly ‘established’ Austin, but his winning of the Royal Rumble (--an event that in itself probably trumps both the Money in the Bank ladder match and King of the Ring put together and multiplied by infinity..) , not once, but two years in a row.
Another name you’ll always hear brought up in defense of King of the Ring is Bret Hart. This one is easy to debunk right off the bat as Bret was already an established main eventer and former WWE champion by the time he won his King of the Ring crown in 1993. Having his name connected to the event was definitely a boost for the event itself, and for future winners, but for the most part, what good did it ever do for the likes of such future ‘royalty’ as Billy Gun, Ken Shamrock, Mabel, and even Bret Hart’s younger brother Owen, who won the event the year after his older sibling did, and integrated the ‘Kingship’ gimmick into his overall character by proclaiming himself the King of Harts?
As entertaining as he was in that role, he remained, with the sole exception of his feud with Bret during the summer of 1994, a true “mid carder for life”… Now for the likes of Triple H, who had the honor of winning the event in 1997; his is a case much like Austin where I would say that while a milestone in his career, it no more catapulted him up the ladder than it did for Stone Cold, as it would be a good three years plus multiple changes in both his personality and his physique before he would morph into the Triple H that everyone recognizes him as today. Then you have Edge, who in 2001, made the memorable promise not to “Billy Gunn” his King of the Ring victory, but in the end, while he did more with his crown than Gunn, there were still many years and several changes in store for the future ‘Rated R Superstar’ before he would grow into the status and role that he enjoys today.
The final true King of the Ring victor was none other than Brock Lesnar, for whom the event was the final leaping point before he made the jump to full time main event status after defeating The Rock at Summerslam in 2002. Brock was already on the receiving end of a huge monster push though, and by the time he won the event in 2002, it had lost a lot of the luster it enjoyed in its heyday, due in part to the aforementioned likes of Mabel and Billy Gunn ascending to the throne. This was so evident to the powers that be that after this event, King of the Ring was pulled from the WWE schedule as a stand alone PPV event. Since then it has been ‘resurrected’ only as an occasionally single brand tournament held on free TV instead of PPV.
The two winners I can remember since then are Booker T, who used the accomplishment as a bit of springboard to completely overhaul his character into a more royally sophisticated personality, which in the end, gained him a run as world champion on Smackdown for a cup of coffee or so; and the other winner, William Regal, was just in the midst of a mega push of sorts, but got himself suspended due to a wellness violation, and so that was that. I can’t really complain with the booking of either of these past two winners, but with the tournament itself being removed from PPV, I would say that winning it in turn lost a lot of the significance that it formerly enjoyed.
Contrast that now with Money in the Bank. Since its invention and inception every single person to ever cash in his briefcase has went on to win a world championship on that same occasion. Edge, who had been stymied in the mid card for years, after several attempted pushes up the ladder, and even a reign as King of the Ring, finally got the break he’d worked so hard for when he won the inaugural six man ladder match at Wrestlemania 21. Likewise, long time crowd favorite Rob Van Dam was well on his way to becoming an established go to guy, after he cashed in his briefcase, and had it not been for his own stupid drug related decisions during this time he might’ve cemented his spot in history during that time, in a more positive way than he wound up doing anyway, that is.
Also, what King of the Ring moment could ever re-capture the shocking excitement felt by thousands as they watched young CM Punk cash in his Money in the Bank briefcase to defeat Edge for his first world championship? And the match itself is pretty much always a show stealer, with impressive athletes like Shelton Benjamin receiving a yearly venue to show off their skills, and thus far there really hasn’t been a bad Money in the Bank ladder match to single out that I can think of anyway. King of the Ring on the other hand, while it started off with noble beginnings gradually eroded from a one night eight man tournament on PPV, to a four man tournament, to finally losing its stand alone PPV status entirely, and becoming more or less a novelty event to put on whenever WWE has ‘nothing else going on’… What say you Stingerino?
Posted Image
Stinger: Jules makes a compelling argument against King of the Ring, but the notion that Money In The Bank has done a better job of pushing or creating new stars is false. While it is true that everyone who won Money In The Bank did cash it in and win a World Championship, only one of those individuals actually wrestled a match to win said championship. King of the Ring on the other hand didn't simply hotshot guys to a short reign as World Champion, it elevated the talent who won it to a level higher than they were previously on. To make the best argument possible, I'm going to need to do a case-by-case myself.
Bret Hart first won the WWE Championship in 1992, at a non-televised event, from a man who was soon to return to WCW. He defended the title against Shawn Michaels in a match that didn't even make the event poster and was hardly the selling point of the event (Survivor Series '92). He continued to defend the title against mid-card talent at the Royal Rumble in 1993 against Razor Ramon, before finally losing the title to Yokozuna at WrestleMania IX just so Hulk Hogan could get it back. After losing the title, he most certainly did not remain in the main event. Even after winning King of the Ring, he went on to feud with Doink and Jerry Lawler. King of the Ring certainly did not make Bret Hart's career, or even make him a main eventer, but winning three very good to great matches in one night most definitely raised his stock.
Owen Hart upset the world by defeating Bret at WrestleMania X, and then continued his roll by wining the King of the Ring in 1997, and it in doing so pushed him into a WWE Championship feud with champion brother Bret. He never won the WWE Championship, nor was he a main eventer, but the King of the Ring did help elevate him to the upper mid-card. In Mable, you had a face who had been in a bad tag team, turned heel and won King of the Ring '95 and then challenged Diesel for the WWE Championship. No, he didn't win and no one ever cared about him, that's one bad egg so far.
The King of the Ring 1996 was the beginning of Steve Austin's rise. You can say his launch to stardom was more because of his promo afterwords, but he never would have given that promo had he just won King of the Ring. This event took a guy who had previously been feuding with Savio Vega and using the name The Ringmaster. It took a nobody in WWE and made a superstar who was elevated from the likes of Savio and Marc Mero, to Bret Hart by the end of the year and then the Royal Rumble in '97. All of this because of his victory at the King of the Ring and his coronation speech that immediately followed it. King of the Ring made Steve Austin, *snaps fingers* just like that.
In '97 Triple H won the King of the Ring. Here's a guy who had been in WWE for two years, was never more than a blip on the radar and going no-where mid-card talent. He won King of the Ring and entered into a big program with Mankind/Cactus Jack/Dude Love and partnered with Shawn Michaels to form Degeneration X and rode the success straight to the WWE Championship in 1999. Ken Shamrock and Billy Gunn both fizzled. Edge's King of the Ring win elevated him from a simple tag team wrestler, into an upper mid-card talent. When he got injured and was out for a year, he came back in 2004 and quickly began moving his way back up the ladder and eventually getting to where he is now.
Brock Lesnar was on fire, rolled into the King of the Ring 2002, won it and went on to defeat The Rock for the WWE Championship at Summer Slam. A tremendous success, easily the quickest success story in all of the King of the Ring's history. Even after it ceased to be a PPV, Booker T went on to win it in 2006 and then he became World Champion when most never thought Booker would actually win the big title in WWE. King Booker remained in the main event scene until he left the company.
Money In The Bank created a nice gimmick, but its only true success to date has been Edge, a King of the Ring winner. RVD cashed in, acted stupid, lost his titles and did nothing meaningful the remainder of the time he was in the company. Mr. Kennedy won Money In The Bank, got injured, lost his briefcase, and only managed to get hurt again. CM Punk won, cashed in thanks to Batista beating down Edge, held the title for a couple of months and then didn't even get the opportunity to lose his title by competing in the Scramble match. Never got a PPV rematch and instead won tag team and Intercontinental gold. Of course he has it again now, but he just lost to Kane at Backlash. We'll see if WWE can book him right and actually make him a main event player this time around though. But as of now, the only person to have won Money In The Bank to make it to the main event and stay there, is Edge.
Posted Image
Edge, the only man to win King of the Ring and Money In The Bank.
Jules: You made a couple of modestly good points there my column writing comprendo, however, I would argue back to your final statement about the Money in the Bank ladder match so far providing us with only one stable main eventer, in Edge, as more a case of simple bad luck and bad decision making on WWE’s part rather than any inherent feature or failure of the match itself. Rob Van Dam as we both mentioned, screwed himself over when he got pulled over with his bosom buddy Sabu holding a bag of reefer, Kennedy got hurt, and the year CM Punk won it for the first time, was supposed to be Jeff Hardy’s time to shine, but he, through his own stupidity via a wellness policy violation, shot himself in the foot too, and thus inadvertently caused WWE to jump the gun on Punk.
On top of that, Money in the Bank has yet to be marred by the likes of the aforementioned Mabel or Billy Gunn (or their modern equivalents) being given the coveted briefcase, which remains, to this day, a very big deal in WWE circles, whereas the King of the Ring crown is basically a prop of little value to anyone who does not have a personality already predisposed to a royalty gimmick such as Booker T or William Regal.
Stinger: Right, a lot of the problem with MITB has been because of the winner or the person who was to win making stupid decisions or getting hurt. But KOTR itself only promised the winner a World Championship match a few times, whereas MITB has been used all but once as a quick way to cheaply hotshot the title onto someone else. And they don't usually keep it for long. Winning King of the Ring elevated the careers of most of its winners in the long term.
Jules: If I am not mistaken, wasn’t the winner of the King of the Ring tournament at one point anyway, normally nearly guaranteed a title shot at Summerslam, in much the same way that the winner of the Royal Rumble always receives his World Title match at Wrestlemania? That being said, King of the Ring, while it was a stepping stone for many legendary stars who were then on the rise, never immediately propelled people into the spotlight quite as quickly as Money in the Bank has for those who have won it so far. So in a sense, winning Money in the Bank is kind of like winning the lottery, you have the chance to attain great long lasting financial stability, but if you are foolish, you will blow it. But is that the fault of the lottery ticket or the fault of the recipient?
And also, one problem so far with comparing these two entities is that with King of the Ring we have what amounts to a decade or more of ‘test results’ to look at, whereas, we so far have just a handful of ‘test results’ to examine in the case of Money in the Bank. Looking at the available specimens we have so far, I think nearly everyone who has won or was meant to win the MITB briefcase, is someone WWE sees as having lasting main event potential… I doubt the same however could be said of everyone to have won the King of the Ring tournament, unless there really was serious talk of actually elevating Billy Gunn to that much talked of ‘next level’…
Stinger: Some King of the Ring winners did get a World Title match at Summerslam, but most didn't. The only person MITB propelled in the main-event for any length of time has been Edge, who already had a "all about the World Championship character" before he won the MITB. And he won KOTR before he won MITB. It was becoming King that pushed him past being a tag team wrestler, on towards the IC and US titles and big matches on Smackdown.
Jules: A viable statement, but this column isn’t about determining which of these gimmicks were better suited to creating solid mid-carders, but rather, lasting main eventers, which Mr. Copeland was established as only after cashing in his Money in the Bank briefcase and defeating John Cena. So with that said, I will not let you try to shoot out from under me the last logical leg I have to stand on here in Edge. He’s working for me in this argument, damn it! Stop trying to steal him you bully. His gimmick of being obsessed with winning a world title beforehand only made the eventual title win all that much sweeter since it was clear that was his goal from the start of things, as it should be with everyone, instead of the ‘Hey look, I got a shiny belt’ look you see on some champions after their title wins.
Stinger: Had Edge not gotten injured at the beginning of 2003, coming off of a great 2001 and 2002 where he was mega over, he would have likely won the WWE Championship on Smackdown sometime in 2003 or 2004. He was well on his way, long before there was such a thing as MITB. His neck injury and being out for over a year, plus groin injury later after returning slowed his push down in a big way. The fact remains though, it was KOTR that gave Edge his singles break and really showed that he was becoming a main eventer. I'll take a slow build following a win over a big honor over a hotshot, cheaply won title any day of the week. It worked for Austin, it worked for Triple H and it worked for Brock Lesnar, none needed MITB.
Jules: Edge-scuses, Edge-scuses… And if Brock Lesnar wasn’t an example of ‘hot shotting’ someone the title before they were formally ready for all the pressures and whatnot that went with it, I don’t know what is. But I digress, and I will allow the readers to make up their mind on this one ultimately. And although I am positionally on the other side of this argument, I don’t want to make it seem like I’m not a fan of the King of the Ring event, as it used to be one of my favorite PPVs to watch every year, before WWE tinkered with the original eight man format that is, and shrunk it down to a four man deal. That cheapened it in my mind, as it made the person who won it, not have to work as hard to accomplish his goal and it was after this that you had the period where it was degraded into an event won by some of the riff raff we’ve already discussed.
So far Money in the Bank has been spared from that fate, and it is in a sense, the King of the Ring for the new millennium, in that it does (ideally) everything that the King of the Ring used to do, only twice as fast (in both the match itself and in the aftermath thereof) in order to better satisfy today’s A.D.D saturated audience, admittedly, perhaps sometimes to its own disadvantage. I think that's about as far as we can take this without resorting to an actual throw down to settle things between us. Does The Stinger happen to have any final thoughts for our adoring audience before we close the case on this one?
Stinger: You know, you're correct that MITB hasn't been cheapened yet, in part because it's still a relatively new concept compared to King of the Ring. We didn't even give mention to the KOTR tournament prior to the event becoming a PPV, which saw guys like Macho Man, Ted DiBiase and Bret Hart all crowned King, amongst others. I agree with you that MITB is like the KOTR for the new millennium, although I don't believe it has as big of an impact in the long term as the King of the Ring event did and still does. I guess in the end, it's all about different eras; back in the day the Kings ruled the world, today the Bankers control the world. Ain't got time to worry about that shit though, you know? You up for a Big Kahuna Burger, Jules?
Jules: I can't argue with that, but then again, it all boils down to the Golden Rule I suppose... that being "He who has the gold, makes the rules." As for your tenuous offer of a Big Kahuna Burger, I must say, those are some good burgers for sure Stinger, but I must ask if will you be the one paying for them this time, ( seeing as you kind of owe me for all those stolen presents and whatnot) and will I also have the option of receiving a tasty beverage to go with my burger, ya know, to wash it all down with?
Stinger: For taking your presents and hoarding them for myself, I'll grant you a Big Kahuna Burger meal, with a tasty beverage to go with it, so long as it is a Sprite. I'll also give you the stick of chewing gum that was addressed to you, in exchange for a foot massage. No? Fine. As for the rest of you, you're certainly welcome to join us, but you're paying for your own shit. Until next time, this has been Jules and Stinger, the BMF's. |
|
