|
|
Post by romanstylesiii on Nov 28, 2017 1:38:46 GMT -5
Those were the days.
Braun as champ would have been cool.
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 47,911
|
Post by Dub H on Nov 28, 2017 7:31:19 GMT -5
Honestly,there is no good reason to why Braun shouldn't have beat Lesnar
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
HaHa U FaLL 4 LaVa TriK
Posts: 46,202 
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Nov 28, 2017 8:41:34 GMT -5
Some weird Vince logic about "They don't need it because they're already popular and you already care about them".
|
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Nov 28, 2017 8:48:08 GMT -5
...AJ Styles, or does he not count for narrative purposes?
|
|
|
|
Post by abjordans on Nov 28, 2017 9:40:39 GMT -5
Is AJ Styles not the most over face in the company?
|
|
|
|
Post by sunnytaker on Nov 28, 2017 10:07:08 GMT -5
AJ could count as the exception that proves the rule maybe?
|
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Nov 28, 2017 10:30:48 GMT -5
*lights up cig*
Welp.
Hate to be the one to says this but...the most popular guy being the top champ hasn't been a thing for a while. Like, a long while.
As an example, Cena has been the guy for well over a decade. Other people have obviously held the belt but Cena, like him or not, was still making WWE most of it's money. There have been times when he's been challenged (Punk & Jeff Hardy being the two biggest) but he's still The Guy in WWE lore. Not so much now since they had Roman drain his energy like one of the Androids in Dragonball Z but you get what I mean.
This isn't a new thing at all. Even in the territory days, it wasn't uncommon for the top title to be on a bland dude or the promoter's son or somet shit because you know they are gonna be around and stable. Meanwhile, somebody else rolls into town to make real money for the promotion but the belt can't be on them for a long period because they'll be moving onto the next town soon.
*shrug* it's how things go in these streets sometimes. Belts are props meant to advance stories and characters. Nothing more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Nov 28, 2017 10:37:02 GMT -5
*lights up cig* Welp. Hate to be the one to says this but...the most popular guy being the top champ hasn't been a thing for a while. Like, a long while. As an example, Cena has been the guy for well over a decade. Other people have obviously held the belt but Cena, like him or not, was still making WWE most of it's money. There have been times when he's been challenged (Punk & Jeff Hardy being the two biggest) but he's still The Guy in WWE lore. Not so much now since they had Roman drain his energy like one of the Androids in Dragonball Z but you get what I mean. This isn't a new thing at all. Even in the territory days, it wasn't uncommon for the top title to be on a bland dude or the promoter's son or somet shit because you know they are gonna be around and stable. Meanwhile, somebody else rolls into town to make real money for the promotion but the belt can't be on them for a long period because they'll be moving onto the next town soon. *shrug* it's how things go in these streets sometimes. Belts are props meant to advance stories and characters. Nothing more. When has that been the norm? From what I've seen, champions who get labeled as "bland" by a majority of the audience don't usually last long in the main event. It's why Ronnie Garvin didn't stay at the top of the card when fans didn't want to accept him over Flair. And Cena wouldn't be a good example, since he was still among the more popular superstars even at the peak of his backlash. That's why Jinder lost the belt. So I don't know what the OP really means, either. |
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Nov 28, 2017 10:43:22 GMT -5
*lights up cig* Welp. Hate to be the one to says this but...the most popular guy being the top champ hasn't been a thing for a while. Like, a long while. As an example, Cena has been the guy for well over a decade. Other people have obviously held the belt but Cena, like him or not, was still making WWE most of it's money. There have been times when he's been challenged (Punk & Jeff Hardy being the two biggest) but he's still The Guy in WWE lore. Not so much now since they had Roman drain his energy like one of the Androids in Dragonball Z but you get what I mean. This isn't a new thing at all. Even in the territory days, it wasn't uncommon for the top title to be on a bland dude or the promoter's son or somet shit because you know they are gonna be around and stable. Meanwhile, somebody else rolls into town to make real money for the promotion but the belt can't be on them for a long period because they'll be moving onto the next town soon. *shrug* it's how things go in these streets sometimes. Belts are props meant to advance stories and characters. Nothing more. When has that been the norm? From what I've seen, champions who get labeled as "bland" by a majority of the audience don't usually last long in the main event. It's why Ronnie Garvin didn't stay at the top of the card when fans didn't want to accept him over Flair. And Cena wouldn't be a good example, since he was still among the more popular superstars even at the peak of his backlash. That's why Jinder lost the belt. So I don't know what the OP really means, either. With Cena, he's still the guy drawing the most money though. The people that held the belt instead of him were popular with the audience but they weren't the MOST popular. That's my point. The belt isn't necessarily placed on the most popular guy. It's done for the purposes of storylines. Sometimes, that can be setting up a chase for the top guy. Sometimes, it's just to help elevate people below the top guy in an effort to close the gap a bit. But it's not uncommon. If you put the belt on somebody that's ass, people aren't gonna accept it. BUT it's not on the most popular guy necessarily. There's a middle ground and in modern WWE, that's where the belt has wound up for the past decade+. |
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 10,992 
|
Post by Sparkybob on Nov 28, 2017 12:23:27 GMT -5
Why does the most popular guy need the title if he is already well liked?
Now the world title should not exclusively be used to build guys up but there is nothing wrong with doing that occasionally.
|
|
|
|
Post by RowdyRobbyPiper on Nov 28, 2017 13:17:54 GMT -5
*lights up cig* Welp. Hate to be the one to says this but...the most popular guy being the top champ hasn't been a thing for a while. Like, a long while. As an example, Cena has been the guy for well over a decade. Other people have obviously held the belt but Cena, like him or not, was still making WWE most of it's money. There have been times when he's been challenged (Punk & Jeff Hardy being the two biggest) but he's still The Guy in WWE lore. Not so much now since they had Roman drain his energy like one of the Androids in Dragonball Z but you get what I mean. This isn't a new thing at all. Even in the territory days, it wasn't uncommon for the top title to be on a bland dude or the promoter's son or somet shit because you know they are gonna be around and stable. Meanwhile, somebody else rolls into town to make real money for the promotion but the belt can't be on them for a long period because they'll be moving onto the next town soon. *shrug* it's how things go in these streets sometimes. Belts are props meant to advance stories and characters. Nothing more. When has that been the norm? From what I've seen, champions who get labeled as "bland" by a majority of the audience don't usually last long in the main event. It's why Ronnie Garvin didn't stay at the top of the card when fans didn't want to accept him over Flair. . I thought Garvin was always intended to be a short-term, transitional champion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2017 13:34:34 GMT -5
Besides a few obvious cases (Styles for example) this mostly hasn't been the case for a while. Sure, you get guys like Ambrose (who's still very popular) getting a belt every once in a while but that doesn't mean he's ever going to be pushed as THE GUY like they should have done years ago. Regardless of how popular someone is that can be drowned out by the company's "vision" and exactly how they see said guy. You have to literally be the best in multiple categories, be the full package, to break out of that. Styles, again, fits this category. Honestly, I don't care if you can wrestle Casper and put on the greatest match of all time. If you have a character I can get that I think is well and if you're reasonably someone I can think of in a particular role then yeah you can be world champion. Strowman is a big dude who's got a great character, can talk and he's someone I "get." A guy like that beating Lesnar for the title is something I could easily believe. He should have been champion especially given how popular he is. I don't care about your vision for Reigns because they had a hit with this one and it's foolish to not act on it when Roman's is something that only has a chance of working and it damn sure won't be beating Lesnar clean with no help. Of course, we need heels to be here in between the popular face reigns but we don't need to be dominated by heels as we've been dominated since the 10s.
There's a way to do it but the WWE is doing it backwards. These days we see long heel reigns with small face reigns in the middle. It should be the other way around where we get long face reigns but we have short heel stints in between.
|
|
|
|
Post by Super Duper Dragunov on Nov 29, 2017 2:56:49 GMT -5
This hasn't been the case since Brock broke Vince's heart back in the 2000's and Vince is the bitter ex that never really was able to trust anyone again.
Since then it's been his safe, handpicked chosen ones, and that's it.
|
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Nov 29, 2017 12:30:13 GMT -5
The most popular guys don't need to be champ as long as they have interesting things to do that take up lots of screen time.
That's the problem; not who's champion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2017 16:57:17 GMT -5
When has that been the norm? From what I've seen, champions who get labeled as "bland" by a majority of the audience don't usually last long in the main event. It's why Ronnie Garvin didn't stay at the top of the card when fans didn't want to accept him over Flair. . I thought Garvin was always intended to be a short-term, transitional champion. That's true, he was basically the most popular guy they had that they didn't mind losing to Flair at Starrcade. However, considering attendance dropped and ratings plummeted, even if they had longer term plans for Garvin they would have had no choice but to quickly pull the plug. |
|
|
|
Post by ben:friendship frog on Nov 29, 2017 17:09:59 GMT -5
Honestly,there is no good reason to why Braun shouldn't have beat Lesnar Hell, I could even stomach another Roman coronation at Mania if he was the one to beat Braun, finally after their long feud. |
|
