David Arquette

[Samoa Kenny]

Now, I didn't watch a ton of WCW at the time, and I know you guys are gonna crap on me for this, but from what I've heard, David Arquette as champ might have actually been a good idea, at least as a storyline to put (or keep) ddp super over. Isn't it just basically the same thing they did with Mikey in ecw, where he gets killed and somehow wins? Granted, Mikey is a real wrestler, but I didn't think that storyline was half bad at all

[poi zen rana]

well no one got beat up by arquette, as he sort of ran in and pinned someone who was knocked down as i recall. i never understood why that was such a bad decision but when vince mcmahon gives himself world titles, you do not hear half the complaints.

did you know vince mcmahon has spent twice as much time as world champ as russo and arquette put together?

[ddt]

I'm not going to agree that having Arquette as the champ was not such a bad thing after all, but you do have a good point: Arquette isn't the only non-wrestler to hold a title (thus, making all titles without value). Not only has McMurder...er, McMahon held a title, but so has Stephanie "I Wouldn't Have a Job if it Wasn't for Daddy" McMahon, Vince "I Wouldn't Have a Job if I Didn't Have Friends in High Places" Russo and "Oklahoma", to name just a few.

Whether you liked the Arquette decision (and subsequent McMahon, Russo and "Oklahoma" decisions) or not, putting the title on someone who isn't a wrestler and who doesn't work hard enough for it and can't carry the company is ridiculous, and only proves to devalue all titles

[hobo]

First of all, putting the title on Arquette was a horrible idea. And I really wish Russo would just admit this, because I kinda like the guy but it's hard to go to bat for him when he still defends it. That being said, a lot of WWE marks are guilty of a huge double standard when they blast WCW and look the other way when McMahon did the same thing.

[Mozenrath]

With McMahon, he was draped over wrestlers to humiliate them.

With Arquette, he ran in and snatched it.

One was a main event heel who was part of storylines for quite some time.

The other was not.

Not really a fair comparison.

WCW made much bigger mistakes than Arquette, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea.

[poi zen rana]

kiddobradley said:

With McMahon, he was draped over wrestlers to humiliate them.

With Arquette, he ran in and snatched it.

One was a main event heel who was part of storylines for quite some time.

The other was not.

Not really a fair comparison.

WCW made much bigger mistakes than Arquette, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea.

well in a way arquette made some sense in the storyline wcw was currently running. when russo had his belt he was a main event heel invovled in storylines.

i am not saying either one was a good idea, i just never get used to the fact that those two are are talked about so much more than vinnie mac's.

[Arthur Digby Stamp]

kiddobradley said:

With McMahon, he was draped over wrestlers to humiliate them.

With Arquette, he ran in and snatched it.

One was a main event heel who was part of storylines for quite some time.

The other was not.

Not really a fair comparison.

WCW made much bigger mistakes than Arquette, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea.

Agreed. Vince McMahon as champion, for better or worse, was a WWE character being used to advance a storyline. David Arquette was brought in to hype a movie. A more similar situation to the Arquette deal would be if WWE had brought in Johnny Knoxville and put the WWE title on him when Walking Tall was coming out.

[Randy Barber 4-Life]

dennisstamp316 said:

kiddobradley said:

With McMahon, he was draped over wrestlers to humiliate them.

With Arquette, he ran in and snatched it.

One was a main event heel who was part of storylines for quite some time.

The other was not.

Not really a fair comparison.

WCW made much bigger mistakes than Arquette, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea.

Agreed. Vince McMahon as champion, for better or worse, was a WWE character being used to advance a storyline. David Arquette was brought in to hype a movie. A more similar situation to the Arquette deal would be if WWE had brought in Johnny Knoxville and put the WWE title on him when Walking Tall was coming out.

Or when Ron Simmons threw Steve-O through the door on RAW, he landed on John Cena and a ref ran over and gave a quick 3 count.

[Kevin Hamilton]

They were all crappy decisions. The 'well Vince held a belt too' argument doesn't make the Arquette thing any less stupid. Both instances were dumb.

[hobo]

The reason I look at McMahon as champion with just as much contempt as Arquette as champion is that I was never a big fan of his Mr. McMahon character in the first place, and I felt that by the time he put the belt on himself that the character had worn out its welcome. But I realize that a lot of people think the Mr. McMahon character was genius, so if you liked the character I guess it makes sense that you're OK with him winning the belt.

[Madagascar Fred]

hmmm let me think about this:

- nobody liked the idea of David Arquette/WCW World HW Champion...the smarks didn´t like it, the marks didn´t like it, hell probably most involved in WCW at that time hated it

- the ratings didn´t increase, and Ready To Rumble still flopped at the Box Office...few mainstream media articles had something to say/write about David´s title win

hmmm I guess it was not such a good idea, no sir

[poi zen rana]

dennisstamp316 said:

kiddobradley said:

With McMahon, he was draped over wrestlers to humiliate them.

With Arquette, he ran in and snatched it.

One was a main event heel who was part of storylines for quite some time.

The other was not.

Not really a fair comparison.

WCW made much bigger mistakes than Arquette, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea.

Agreed. Vince McMahon as champion, for better or worse, was a WWE character being used to advance a storyline. David Arquette was brought in to hype a movie. A more similar situation to the Arquette deal would be if WWE had brought in Johnny Knoxville and put the WWE title on him when Walking Tall was coming out.

i don't agree with your analogy. it would have to be like if the wwe put the wwe title on johnny knoxville when walking tall was coming out, if walking tall was a wrestling movie starring johnny knoxville which introduced a new match type that was to be introduced into the wwe.

[hollywood]

roidzilla said:

hmmm let me think about this:

- nobody liked the idea of David Arquette/WCW World HW Champion...the smarks didn´t like it, the marks didn´t like it, hell probably most involved in WCW at that time hated it

- the ratings didn´t increase, and Ready To Rumble still flopped at the Box Office...few mainstream media articles had something to say/write about David´s title win

hmmm I guess it was not such a good idea, no sir

Let's not forget that David Arquette was also against it.

[Arthur Digby Stamp]

poisonrana said:

dennisstamp316 said:

Agreed. Vince McMahon as champion, for better or worse, was a WWE character being used to advance a storyline. David Arquette was brought in to hype a movie. A more similar situation to the Arquette deal would be if WWE had brought in Johnny Knoxville and put the WWE title on him when Walking Tall was coming out.

i don't agree with your analogy. it would have to be like if the wwe put the wwe title on johnny knoxville when walking tall was coming out, if walking tall was a wrestling movie starring johnny knoxville which introduced a new match type that was to be introduced into the wwe.

I believe that'll be the plot behind TNA's Ready to Rumble 2: Electric Boogaloo.