|
|
Post by machinegun on Nov 29, 2007 23:11:09 GMT -5
One of my favorite concepts has always been King of the Ring. So what does it equate to?
We've had some that didn't go to well (Mr. Ass/ BDV) but we've also had some winners with Lesnar, Austin, Bret, HHH etc.
So where does it rank.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Nov 29, 2007 23:14:47 GMT -5
I'm going with "don't mean crap."
The only ones it really helped were Owen, Austin, HHH, and Brock.
Bret was already well established, and a former WWF champion when he won it. Mabel (Big Daddy V) was/is useless. Shamrock was forgettable. So was Mr. Ass. Edge and Angle were both well on their way to the top when they won it and would have gotten to the top with or without it.
|
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Nov 29, 2007 23:15:26 GMT -5
It shouldn't equate to anything; a concept like the KotR worked perfectly as a method of either elevating younger talent, or establishing top level guys and firmly entrenching them at the top of the card.
Bret, an established champion, won the first PPV one to make it feel legit, and the '94 one did a lot to really solidify Owen's spot. It helped make Austin's career go sky high, and it just told us what we already knew about Lesnar when he won it.
Point is, a tournament like the KotR has a different effect and meaning depending on who wins it, and how they win it. It really shouldn't be equated with a title.
|
|
|
|
Post by twiggy101 on Nov 29, 2007 23:23:44 GMT -5
Something to brag about.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheMediocreWarrior on Nov 29, 2007 23:27:01 GMT -5
I voted equivalent to IC Title.
I think they should bring back KOTR. I like tournaments.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTBartman on Nov 29, 2007 23:29:16 GMT -5
It launched Savage an Booker in to total repackaging. Almost like a trip to DSW for a younger less established talent.
|
|
|
|
Post by salsashark on Nov 29, 2007 23:36:21 GMT -5
I voted equivalent to IC Title. I think they should bring back KOTR. I like tournaments. Agreed on all accounts. |
|
|
|
Post by Cry Me a Wiggle on Nov 29, 2007 23:44:31 GMT -5
I thought it was idiotic when they ditched it. Way to toss tradition and a great way of elevating talent in favor of having just another monthly PPV.
They brought it back just to repackage Booker, and now it's gone again. Pfft.
|
|
|
|
Post by 2 time pro bowler Fred Dryer on Nov 29, 2007 23:48:47 GMT -5
It launched Savage an Booker in to total repackaging. Almost like a trip to DSW for a younger less established talent. Savage never won KOTR. He became "Macho King" by beating Hacksaw Duggan, who beat Haku, etc. Kinda splitting hairs perhaps, but still. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2007 0:20:07 GMT -5
I was never impressed by Booker until he became King Booker. He totally owned that role, and Sharmel didn't hurt. I honestly just never paid attention to him until then.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,934
|
Post by Mozenrath on Nov 30, 2007 3:36:54 GMT -5
KOTR and the European title are both sorely lacking in today's WWE. Wrestlers need stepping stones, or else advancing them up the card is very difficult.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thank You Shawn on Nov 30, 2007 3:40:11 GMT -5
Going with "Other" as that PPV is now defunct
|
|
|
|
Post by jmac950 on Nov 30, 2007 5:09:48 GMT -5
ALL HAIL KING HAIKUUUUUUUU!
I loved the KOTR. They should bring it back. Not to give the winner a title shot. But just a title recognition where someone can get a shot in the arm into the Upper middle card/main event.
I also liked the concept when all the matches were in one night. I never liked the fact WWE would show some of the matches on Raw. It made it more meaningful to have the guy win 3 or 4 matches in one night.
|
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Nov 30, 2007 5:11:19 GMT -5
It's basically a test.
WWF/E want to test the water with a guy, but don't want to "risk" a belt, so they go for KotR.
If the superstar gets and stays over, the scheduled push goes on. Otherwise the win is quickly forgotten.
In earlier days the KotR was also a way to keep in the spotlight a wrestler they didn't have immediate plans for.
|
|
|
|
Post by A Dubya (El Hombre Muerto) on Nov 30, 2007 5:26:02 GMT -5
I thought it was idiotic when they ditched it. Way to toss tradition and a great way of elevating talent in favor of having just another monthly PPV. They brought it back just to repackage Booker, and now it's gone again. Pfft. Yep. I always thought that was dumb. I miss the whole setup and King of the Ring props and stuff from back in the day. |
|
cart
Mephisto
Why do wrestlers think that inernet fans don't get laid? anyone wanna cyber?
Posts: 749
|
Post by cart on Nov 30, 2007 6:51:10 GMT -5
The original king of the ring format was a really excellent one I always thought, but the more watered down it got the more uninspiring it got. I feel that this is a huge problem with wwe pay-per-views at the minute. When it was the big 5 ( Rumble, Mania, KOTR, SS and Survior S) three of them had really strong separate identities and were totally different to the reular cards of summerslam and mania. Rumble had the Rumble, kotr had the tournament with the 4 15 minute matches 2 30 min and 1 hour match, and survivor seris had the 5 man tag matches.
Now all the payper views are exactly the same except the rumble, and that sucks.
To answer your poll question, it was as good as other.
|
|
Hiroshi Hase
Patti Mayonnaise
The Good Ol' Days
Posts: 30,755
|
Post by Hiroshi Hase on Nov 30, 2007 6:55:33 GMT -5
It launched Savage an Booker in to total repackaging. Almost like a trip to DSW for a younger less established talent. Savage never won KOTR. He became "Macho King" by beating Hacksaw Duggan, who beat Haku, etc. Kinda splitting hairs perhaps, but still. Actually Savage did win KOTR in 87, but the King gimmick he had was in 89 after the aforementioned victory over Duggan. |
|
|
|
Post by BoilerRoomBrawler on Nov 30, 2007 12:40:14 GMT -5
The original king of the ring format was a really excellent one I always thought, but the more watered down it got the more uninspiring it got. I feel that this is a huge problem with wwe pay-per-views at the minute. When it was the big 5 ( Rumble, Mania, KOTR, SS and Survior S) three of them had really strong separate identities and were totally different to the reular cards of summerslam and mania. Rumble had the Rumble, kotr had the tournament with the 4 15 minute matches 2 30 min and 1 hour match, and survivor seris had the 5 man tag matches. Now all the payper views are exactly the same except the rumble, and that sucks. To answer your poll question, it was as good as other. That's how I see it too. |
|
Big L
Grimlock
Posts: 13,883
|
Post by Big L on Nov 30, 2007 12:55:33 GMT -5
yea im gonna say it doesnt mean crap just something to have the wrestlers brag about, because most of the wrestlers that win the tournaments are all ready over like someone else on here mentioned
|
|
|
|
Post by TheMediocreWarrior on Nov 30, 2007 15:44:54 GMT -5
KOTR and the European title are both sorely lacking in today's WWE. Wrestlers need stepping stones, or else advancing them up the card is very difficult. I would like to see the European title back, but the thing is its overall history was a mixed bag. There were times when the title was well used, and times when it was forgotten. Some great reigns were D-lo Brown's and Eddie Guerrero's and William Regal's. Then there were times like when Matt Hardy had it and some others had it and it just seemed to be forgotten about. I think it could do okay in place of the Cruiserweight title, but that means they'd actually have to push it as a stepping stone title to the U.S. Title or IC if the wrestler jumps ships. Especially with the SD/ECW merging and whatnot it could do some good. |
|
