Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Mar 28, 2015 9:08:45 GMT -5
I've gone back and forth on the lack of WHC matches since Summerslam. I've come to the conclusion that I'm content with the lack of matches in terms of making them a special attraction for the WWE Network under the premise that the WWE raises the profile of the IC and US titles. I think they've done a good job with Rusev and the US belt. The IC title though, not so much. Maybe if they put it on a Bryan and just let him have a Bret Hart-type of reign with it, then maybe it will be better.
Bottom line, an improved midcard makes the lack of world title defenses not nearly as important.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Mar 28, 2015 9:26:06 GMT -5
Brock can make it work though. Get him to wrestle 5 total matches after this Mania and before next Mania. Build Lesnar as a guy in a class by himself and as such, to get a shot at him you have to earn it in a way you've never had to earn it before. He's the final boss, to get to him takes a shit load of work. Yeah but what's the point of watching Raw if you know at the end of the day, none of what happens on the show really matters all that much until August? There really should be a group of people, a team if you will, whose job is to come up with compelling reasons to watch the show. I'd argue that the current roster is second to none in terms of talent but they just cannot write compelling stories which is a shame. Well that or other titles that could be used in such a way as to provide something to wrestle over while the World Title scene shakes out around Brock. Oh well, since there isn't I'll stick with Brock continuing to be the most entertaining thing in WWE that isn't based out of Orlando. |
|
Perd
Patti Mayonnaise
Leslie needs to butt out for fear of receiving The Bunghole Buster
Posts: 31,968
|
Post by Perd on Mar 28, 2015 9:27:13 GMT -5
It's almost entirely because I don't want Roman to win it. Yes we might not see Brock for a while but then he'll hopefully lose the title to someone the fans actually want to be champion like, I dunno, almost every single one of the other upper card faces or heels. Exactly. All this talk about Brock rarely defending, making the belt seem more important, reads like a bunch of hooey. If it was Daniel Bryan, Dean Ambrose, or Dolph Ziggler almost no one would be saying that, myself included. Brock doesn't need the title. He is bigger than the title. The Reigns/Brock feud is all about can Reigns be the one to stop Brock. The fact he'd become champion by doing so is secondary. If I had my choice, I'd have Seth cash-in successfully. I think it'd make for the best TV going forward. I also think the idea of making the IC/US titles more important is fool's gold. It sounds nice, and they may be elevated while Bryan and Cena hold them. But as soon as those guys drop them, they'll go back to being what they've been for years: meaningless. I'd love to see it happen, but I just can't give WWE the benefit of the doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by bmfjules on Mar 28, 2015 9:35:56 GMT -5
One Brock PPV title defense is worth three from anyone else
|
|
Dean-o
Grimlock
Haha we're having fun Maggle!
Posts: 13,865 
|
Post by Dean-o on Mar 28, 2015 9:49:14 GMT -5
I'll take a phantom champ over Reigns vs. Big Show or Kane for the next couple of months.
Besides, this gives the WWE the chance to finally boost their US and IC champions. There is no reason why either of these belts can't main event a PPV. Especially if Cena and/Bryan are champions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Milkman Norm on Mar 28, 2015 10:03:02 GMT -5
I think it's pretty obvious that Brock is turning heel tomorrow or Monday. I assume there's going to be a big angle to set up the future in that period. So that helps refresh things for the rest of the year. Also I agree No belt beats Lesnar vs Local Men.
|
|
|
|
Post by joediego on Mar 28, 2015 10:29:10 GMT -5
Amount of times the WWF title was defended on cards specifically recorded/broadcast for TV by year:
1985: 2
1986: 5
1987: 4
1988: 4
1989: 5
1990: 6
1991: 5
1992: 7
1993: 7
1994: 10
1995: 9
1996: 12
1997: 14
1998: 16
1999: 27
2000: 17
2001: 25
2002: 20
2003: 9
2004: 12
2005: 11
2006: 16
2007: 15
2008: 15
2009: 17
2010: 19
2011: 19
2012: 19
2013: 13
2014: 9
2015: 1
I like it this way....anything over 8 a year is overkill IMO. Remember that list doesn't include 2001-2013 where the WCW Title and the WHC were also in play...so you can at least double the number for those years if you want to include the secondary (sometimes the primary) title.
Title defences from 1998-2013 just didn't feel special. Now it feels really important whenever the title is on the line.
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Mar 28, 2015 10:37:11 GMT -5
100% fine with me. I'm totally happy with 3-4 title matches per year until someone is legitimately built up well enough for an epic confrontation with end-boss-Brock.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Mar 28, 2015 10:47:13 GMT -5
Yeah but what's the point of watching Raw if you know at the end of the day, none of what happens on the show really matters all that much until August? There really should be a group of people, a team if you will, whose job is to come up with compelling reasons to watch the show. I'd argue that the current roster is second to none in terms of talent but they just cannot write compelling stories which is a shame. Well that or other titles that could be used in such a way as to provide something to wrestle over while the World Title scene shakes out around Brock. Oh well, since there isn't I'll stick with Brock continuing to be the most entertaining thing in WWE that isn't based out of Orlando. I mean I wouldn't expect the writers of any wrestling show to have an easy time creating a show that feels like it actually matters without having access to the champion for 1/3 of the year. Even Hogan in WCW showed up more often. And even if you elevate the other two titles, they're still just the secondary titles. No matter how much you build them up, they'll never come close to being as important as the World Title, and it makes guys look like jokes if they just say "Well I mean the big title isn't around, so I'll just settle for this." And to address your last part, he's entertaining but he also won't be on tv, so will it matter that much? Like couldn't they have him lose, turn face, and continue to do that when he comes back in August against guys like Rollins, Wyatt, and Rusev instead? |
|
|
|
Post by BatPunk on Mar 28, 2015 10:58:33 GMT -5
I love the idea of Brock holding onto the title and only working 4-5 PPV's a year. It really brings a whole 'Who the hell is going to beat him?' vibe the the WWE Championship.
|
|
Juice
El Dandy
Wrong? Oh he can tell ya about being wrong.
I'm the one who raised you from perdition.
Posts: 8,172
|
Post by Juice on Mar 28, 2015 11:04:39 GMT -5
Brock can make it work though. Get him to wrestle 5 total matches after this Mania and before next Mania. Build Lesnar as a guy in a class by himself and as such, to get a shot at him you have to earn it in a way you've never had to earn it before. He's the final boss, to get to him takes a shit load of work. Yeah but what's the point of watching Raw if you know at the end of the day, none of what happens on the show really matters all that much until August? It's raw nothing matters ever. It's just a circus act that keeps on going. Mania is make or break for me. If it's not to my taste then I am officially done. Haven't watched a second since The Rumble. And If a Face Reigns walks out of Mania champ I can't say I will ever watch again. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2015 11:05:15 GMT -5
I've been VERY down on WWE for the last little while and I still paid to see every Brock title defense.
He can go ahead and keep the belt, he'll get my money for those few title defenses. He's special.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Mar 28, 2015 11:06:31 GMT -5
Totally fine with it. I'm a Brock fan.
|
|
Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Mar 28, 2015 11:41:49 GMT -5
It's almost entirely because I don't want Roman to win it. Yes we might not see Brock for a while but then he'll hopefully lose the title to someone the fans actually want to be champion like, I dunno, almost every single one of the other upper card faces or heels. Exactly. All this talk about Brock rarely defending, making the belt seem more important, reads like a bunch of hooey. If it was Daniel Bryan, Dean Ambrose, or Dolph Ziggler almost no one would be saying that, myself included. Brock doesn't need the title. He is bigger than the title. The Reigns/Brock feud is all about can Reigns be the one to stop Brock. The fact he'd become champion by doing so is secondary. If I had my choice, I'd have Seth cash-in successfully. I think it'd make for the best TV going forward. I also think the idea of making the IC/US titles more important is fool's gold. It sounds nice, and they may be elevated while Bryan and Cena hold them. But as soon as those guys drop them, they'll go back to being what they've been for years: meaningless. I'd love to see it happen, but I just can't give WWE the benefit of the doubt. I think that really has frustrated me with the WWE more than the other stuff. So much good talent. How is there NOT a credible midcard to make those two titles relevant? And yes, I am likely going to be responded with a picture of Vince McMahon with an evil grin or Kevin Dunn's soulless eyes staring me down like I'm made of walnut oak. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2015 11:49:04 GMT -5
Those title matches on the shitty filler PPVs never amount to anything anyways, I hope that from now on the champ only defends on the big shows.
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 27,959
|
Post by chazraps on Mar 28, 2015 12:09:16 GMT -5
Brock retains.
Some stay dry and others feel the pain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2015 12:21:14 GMT -5
It does not set a feeling of who will beat him - he is never there. How can anyone beat him if he never turns up?
Also it has officially killed their "contractual obligations" thing. He disappeared for 4 months with no defence or even appearance. That is pathetic.
Your champion doing no promotion or even TV for four months is indefensible. Why would a boxer fight if the champ only fought once a decade?
|
|
Juice
El Dandy
Wrong? Oh he can tell ya about being wrong.
I'm the one who raised you from perdition.
Posts: 8,172
|
Post by Juice on Mar 28, 2015 12:40:52 GMT -5
It does not set a feeling of who will beat him - he is never there. How can anyone beat him if he never turns up? Also it has officially killed their "contractual obligations" thing. He disappeared for 4 months with no defence or even appearance. That is pathetic. Your champion doing no promotion or even TV for four months is indefensible. Why would a boxer fight if the champ only fought once a decade? Wrestling is fake and "Contractual Obligations" is merely a plot device. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2015 13:34:40 GMT -5
It does not set a feeling of who will beat him - he is never there. How can anyone beat him if he never turns up? Also it has officially killed their "contractual obligations" thing. He disappeared for 4 months with no defence or even appearance. That is pathetic. Your champion doing no promotion or even TV for four months is indefensible. Why would a boxer fight if the champ only fought once a decade? Wrestling is fake and "Contractual Obligations" is merely a plot device. Do you have to be condescending? I'm not an idiot. My point is why watch a show about people trying to be the best when the opportunity f***s off for 4 months at a time? |
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Mar 28, 2015 13:40:08 GMT -5
Brock retains. Some stay dry and others feel the pain. WELP. HERE COMES THE PAIN. |
|
