Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,170
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Mar 31, 2016 3:22:54 GMT -5
Do I really have to explain the difference between a fake, which people want you to believe is real, and a mock up based on a rumour? Once something is being posted without a source, there's no difference at all. And in any case unless the "mock up" is by the WWE, it's not official, therefore it's real. And if it's not real, as far as I'm concerned it's....predetermined? Well no, there's a difference, no one said "This is what the belt will look like" so it's not a fake, it's speculation.
|
|
|
Post by ANuclearError on Mar 31, 2016 3:28:02 GMT -5
So how will Stephanie be inserted into this on Raw?
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Mar 31, 2016 3:29:59 GMT -5
So how will Stephanie be inserted into this on Raw? Guess it depends on the result of Shane v Taker... If Shane O'Mac wins, Stephanie's out of power, so all you'd get from her is having a screech on the mic on the way out.
|
|
Lt. Palumbo
Hank Scorpio
On again off again watcher of a wrestling TV show
Posts: 6,067
|
Post by Lt. Palumbo on Mar 31, 2016 3:46:09 GMT -5
Once something is being posted without a source, there's no difference at all. And in any case unless the "mock up" is by the WWE, it's not official, therefore it's not real. And if it's not real, as far as I'm concerned it's....predetermined? Well no, there's a difference, no one said "This is what the belt will look like" so it's not a fake, it's speculation. To me it's a bit like one of those snopes situations where perhaps the initial intent wasn't to "con" people or whatever but through the spreading of an image of "trees growing through chairs" it gets assumed that they grew that way and it wasn't put together by an artist. The image of the belt was originally posted in the thread as "So, the new belt is going to look like this" Which of course doesn't imply that it's official, but you can definitely see how on the internet, this picture or the one of "trees growing through chairs" can quickly become passed around as fact (without sourcing) In that case, artist intent becomes irrelevant. In that context, it's fake as in not the genuine article. Also, to further complicate matters, the image is in fact, not even a "mock up" made by someone on a reddit thread, it is a custom job made in 2013 www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7cKZWB3YIwSo even as a "mock up" it is a fake. Man, if snopes cared about wrestling
|
|
|
Post by Captain & Diet on Mar 31, 2016 9:31:08 GMT -5
Shit this means I'm going to have to blackout my trampstamp
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Mar 31, 2016 9:39:26 GMT -5
I don't often have a ton of good to say about WWE, but if this is all legit then it's a good, positive step for them. There are multiple uses for the word "Diva", but it's hard to say that the way WWE has utilized it over the years has been a particularly positive use of it, so scaling it back, particularly as they continue their shift toward focusing more on quality women's wrestling, is the right move.
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Mar 31, 2016 9:46:23 GMT -5
The problem with that is even if you don't think that those women can't wrestle, segregating the women in such a way would be blatantly saying just that. "Oh, let's put the women who are actually good on RAW and all those shitty bitches who have nothing going for them except pretty faces and nice tits on SD." WWE needs to make an actual effort to fix their workers who were unfortunate enough to come up during their darker periods rather than just writing them off. Well, if this report is any indication, Triple H is the one facilitating this segregation within the Divas division. Link: www.pwpix.net/vince-mcmahon-wanted-total-divas-vs-b-d-blonde-match-eva-marie/Basically, viewing Bayley as a "women's wrestler" and not wanting her to get lumped in with the "Divas". Divas such as, Natalya, Paige, Naomi, Emma and Alicia Fox. I don't think it's a deliberate attempt to segregate "women's wrestler" and "Divas" as much as HHH probably not wanting Bayley, who could potentially be the female John Cena in terms of merchandising and marketing, to be labeled as an outdated term that a lot of fans still associate with either a bathroom break or an over-sexualized character who constantly acts like a bitch because Vince apparently thinks "that's what women do, right?".
|
|
|
Post by Toilet Paper Roll on Mar 31, 2016 9:50:51 GMT -5
WwE needs to brand everything, so the Divas tag isn't going away unless hey can find a more desirable and brandable word to hashish and have Cole say 2-300 times during a match to replace it with.
|
|
|
Post by Surfer Sandman on Mar 31, 2016 9:51:04 GMT -5
The belt absolutely needed to be changed but there was no real problem with the actual word "Divas" in general. Other than the fact that it refers to a hysterical, bitchy woman? I'm sorry for being frank here but that's what the word "diva" means to me. Get rid of it and the goofy belt and treat womens' wrestling with the respect that it has never gotten in the mainstream!
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Mar 31, 2016 9:52:03 GMT -5
WwE needs to brand everything, so the Divas tag isn't going away unless hey can find a more desirable and brandable word to hashish and have Cole say 2-300 times during a match to replace it with. Honestly, I'd just call them Superstars like the men are.
|
|
|
Post by Toilet Paper Roll on Mar 31, 2016 9:53:46 GMT -5
WwE needs to brand everything, so the Divas tag isn't going away unless hey can find a more desirable and brandable word to hashish and have Cole say 2-300 times during a match to replace it with. Honestly, I'd just call them Superstars like the men are. So would a normal person. More reason I don't think the WWE will do it.
|
|
|
Post by lebuddha on Mar 31, 2016 10:21:09 GMT -5
Hey guys, I recently got back to watching WWE again after a 8 year hiatus. Anyways, I'd like to know why they decided to abandon the lineage for the original Women's Championship decided to continue off with the Diva's Championship? Same thing goes for the World Tag Titles. These championships had 55 and 40 years of history in them.. I get why they started the belts, because of the brand split) but I would've thought that if they reunified them, they would go with the one that holds the most history. Was there something going around in 2010?
I feel like a reason they might be doing this because having a 4-time world champion sounds so much better if there arent that many 4-time world champions on the roster. It makes it seem more of an iconic feat to be one of the only few to do it.
Also curious why WWE never acknowledged WCW and NWA's legacy of the Big Gold Belt when they rebranded it as the World Heavyweight Championship on Raw in 2002.. I mean you had Eric Bischoff handing HHH the belt and he told him he was the last to wear it (referring to when he defeated Jericho at WMX8), and that the title has been worn by many of the greatest champions in this industry. So obviously he was referring to the WCW belt, I mean why wouldn't he? He was the former head over there!
|
|
|
Post by sunnytaker on Mar 31, 2016 10:25:21 GMT -5
and now they can gloss over how the majority of the division has been a divas' champ at one point or another and only start counting women's title runs now. though admittedly there have been enough new people coming in it might actually be under half the division are ex-champs for the first time in a long time.
|
|
gl83
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,034
|
Post by gl83 on Mar 31, 2016 10:57:39 GMT -5
and now they can gloss over how the majority of the division has been a divas' champ at one point or another and only start counting women's title runs now. though admittedly there have been enough new people coming in it might actually be under half the division are ex-champs for the first time in a long time. Then again, they might want to keep it that way so they can pretend that a win against Alicia Fox, Brie Bella or Natalya actually mean something.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Mar 31, 2016 11:04:02 GMT -5
I guess when I heard about the belt change, I was disappointed it would look like the WWE Title. I almost think they should keep the Big Gold Belt design. This is actually very exciting.
Personally I'm hoping for Becky Lynch to be the new face of the women's division for now. She used to come out to crickets for awhile when she started her singles run and then became a huge babyface from a pretty basic storyline.
|
|
|
Post by TheFadedSpade on Mar 31, 2016 11:12:37 GMT -5
So, the new belt is going to look like this: Remember that time Rollins came out to face Cena with white attire? He should've used this type of belt too (but with the new logo).
|
|
|
Post by Martin: #TeamBella Treasurer on Mar 31, 2016 11:50:46 GMT -5
Hey guys, I recently got back to watching WWE again after a 8 year hiatus. Anyways, I'd like to know why they decided to abandon the lineage for the original Women's Championship decided to continue off with the Diva's Championship? Same thing goes for the World Tag Titles. These championships had 55 and 40 years of history in them.. I get why they started the belts, because of the brand split) but I would've thought that if they reunified them, they would go with the one that holds the most history. Was there something going around in 2010? I feel like a reason they might be doing this because having a 4-time world champion sounds so much better if there arent that many 4-time world champions on the roster. It makes it seem more of an iconic feat to be one of the only few to do it. Also curious why WWE never acknowledged WCW and NWA's legacy of the Big Gold Belt when they rebranded it as the World Heavyweight Championship on Raw in 2002.. I mean you had Eric Bischoff handing HHH the belt and he told him he was the last to wear it (referring to when he defeated Jericho at WMX8), and that the title has been worn by many of the greatest champions in this industry. So obviously he was referring to the WCW belt, I mean why wouldn't he? He was the former head over there! Whilst retiring the World Tag Team title seems to, I think, mystify us all, I'm guessing they felt the Women's title was, for a lack of a better term, tarnished, with title reigns by (albeit over) valets, and defended and won in evening gown matches and swimming pool matches, and had some long periods of inactivity. Surprisingly enough, the Divas title (to the best of my memory) hasn't been defended in any of these matches, though that may have been happenstance that the title came in as the WWE had begun changing direction and got rid of some of the Bra and Panties/strip matches. They seem to acknowledge the World Heavyweight title as the WCW and NWA titles when it suits them, i.e. DVDs and such. While it may not have been the case at the time, I've seen the argument being made that Bischoff could have been talking about the physical belt and not the championship. Honestly, I think Triple H wanted to be recognised as the first champion in 2002, which is why officially the World Heavyweight title was its own title. Maybe not wanting Russo and David Arquette listed as former champions may have been a reason too.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Mar 31, 2016 12:00:38 GMT -5
Hey guys, I recently got back to watching WWE again after a 8 year hiatus. Anyways, I'd like to know why they decided to abandon the lineage for the original Women's Championship decided to continue off with the Diva's Championship? Same thing goes for the World Tag Titles. These championships had 55 and 40 years of history in them.. I get why they started the belts, because of the brand split) but I would've thought that if they reunified them, they would go with the one that holds the most history. Was there something going around in 2010? I feel like a reason they might be doing this because having a 4-time world champion sounds so much better if there arent that many 4-time world champions on the roster. It makes it seem more of an iconic feat to be one of the only few to do it. Also curious why WWE never acknowledged WCW and NWA's legacy of the Big Gold Belt when they rebranded it as the World Heavyweight Championship on Raw in 2002.. I mean you had Eric Bischoff handing HHH the belt and he told him he was the last to wear it (referring to when he defeated Jericho at WMX8), and that the title has been worn by many of the greatest champions in this industry. So obviously he was referring to the WCW belt, I mean why wouldn't he? He was the former head over there! Whilst retiring the World Tag Team title seems to, I think, mystify us all, I'm guessing they felt the Women's title was, for a lack of a better term, tarnished, with title reigns by (albeit over) valets, and defended and won in evening gown matches and swimming pool matches, and had some long periods of inactivity. Surprisingly enough, the Divas title (to the best of my memory) hasn't been defended in any of these matches, though that may have been happenstance that the title came in as the WWE had begun changing direction and got rid of some of the Bra and Panties/strip matches. They seem to acknowledge the World Heavyweight title as the WCW and NWA titles when it suits them, i.e. DVDs and such. While it may not have been the case at the time, I've seen the argument being made that Bischoff could have been talking about the physical belt and not the championship. Honestly, I think Triple H wanted to be recognised as the first champion in 2002, which is why officially the World Heavyweight title was its own title. Maybe not wanting Russo and David Arquette listed as former champions may have been a reason too. Probably not wanting to mention Moolah as much due to her popularity uh... let's say greatly diminishing after certain things became public too. Not that it really matters since her decades long title reign was all Kayfabe to begin with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2016 12:22:26 GMT -5
I never understood why they felt they needed to so strongly brand the women's title in the first place. Or at all really.
If I see a dude with the title and the announcer goes "The WWE Champion!" I don't go, "Damn, is he the men's or women's champion? I can't tell!!"
Same goes for seeing Charlotte with the title. I don't really need it to be specifically called the "Women's" or "Divas" title. I can't imagine the WWE fan base is that obtuse that they can't work out which one is which from just seeing who is holding the title. Especially since WWE has a pretty well-established restriction on intergender matches at this point.
If WWE wants to truly legitimatize the women's division, just call both titles the "WWE Title" and leave it at that because no one's going to see Sasha Bank with the title around her waist and go, "Hey wait a tick, did she beat HHH at WM or something?!!?" People will figure it out as soon as they see who is holding the title.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Mar 31, 2016 12:24:26 GMT -5
I never understood why they felt they needed to so strongly brand the women's title in the first place. Or at all really. If I see a dude with the title and the announcer goes "The WWE Champion!" I don't go, "Damn, is he the men's or women's champion? I can't tell!!" Same goes for seeing Charlotte with the title. I don't really need it to be specifically called the "Women's" or "Divas" title. I can't imagine the WWE fan base is that obtuse that they can't work out which one is which from just seeing who is holding the title. Especially since WWE has a pretty well-established restriction on intergender matches at this point. If WWE wants to truly legitimatize the women's division, just call both titles the "WWE Title" and leave it at that because no one's going to see Sasha Bank with the title around her waist and go, "Hey wait a tick, did she beat HHH at WM or something?!!?" People will figure it out as soon as they see who is holding the title. That doesn't bother me nearly as much as the NXT announcer suddenly announcing that Emma vs. Asuka is taking place in the Women's Division.
|
|