BHB
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,778
|
Post by BHB on Dec 3, 2010 12:28:07 GMT -5
And another thing, if the Royal Rumble winner is guaranteed the main event at WM, shouldn't his match always be last? Since when is third-from-last the main event? This, the Rumble winner main eventing Wrestlemania is talked about every year but it often doesn't happen, yet the fact is completely ignored. It's just sloppy.
|
|
Big L
Grimlock
Posts: 13,883
|
Post by Big L on Dec 3, 2010 12:50:50 GMT -5
I never understood the ecw thing either
|
|
randomranter
Dennis Stamp
When you grow up....... YOU'RE GONNA BE WROOOOOONG!!!!
Posts: 4,804
|
Post by randomranter on Dec 3, 2010 13:32:55 GMT -5
The main event historically has always been the *featured* match on the card. It traditionally is the last match of the card, but that's not by definition..
Back in the house show era, having the main event in the middle of the card was commonplace -- main eventers would sometimes have to wrestle in 2 arenas in one day. They'd book the main event in the middle of the card to give time for the main eventer to leave and make it to the evening show. Sometimes, it was also done out of courtesy to give the main eventers a chance to avoid the crowds (especially for the heels, where safety could become an issue) or simply just avoid traffic.
These days, main events might be booked earlier on the card if the results of the match are going to affect a later match. For example, main eventer A loses his belt in an earlier match, then somehow interjects himself into a later match for another title.
Also, we're in an era where multiple main events are commonplace. Simply put, one of them has to go on before the other. It doesn't (usually) de-value the importance of the earlier match -- it's just the only way they can do it unless they start setting up multiple rings and have two matches going on at once.
|
|
|
Post by Hammer Smashed Ball on Dec 3, 2010 14:02:51 GMT -5
My feelings every time I see John Morrison How has this been no-sold? Brilliant!
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Dec 3, 2010 14:07:47 GMT -5
And another thing, if the Royal Rumble winner is guaranteed the main event at WM, shouldn't his match always be last? Since when is third-from-last the main event? This, the Rumble winner main eventing Wrestlemania is talked about every year but it often doesn't happen, yet the fact is completely ignored. It's just sloppy. He's guaranteed a world title match at Wrestlemania, I think.
|
|
Hawk Hart
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sold his organs.
The Best There Is, the Best There Was, and the Best That There Ever Will Be
Posts: 15,296
|
Post by Hawk Hart on Dec 3, 2010 14:40:16 GMT -5
This, the Rumble winner main eventing Wrestlemania is talked about every year but it often doesn't happen, yet the fact is completely ignored. It's just sloppy. He's guaranteed a world title match at Wrestlemania, I think. Came to post that. I'm pretty sure in recent years, they started phrasing it to say that Rumble winner just gets a title shot. It doesn't really matter in this day though since all the Rumble winners since Batista were already either main eventers or hugely over upper mid carders and that's when this trend started. Take at look at this. Rey Mysterio - 2006 - 9th Match Undertaker - 2007 - 4th Match John Cena - 2008 - 7th Match Randy Orton - 2009 - Main Event Edge - 2010 - 7th Match So if you look at those numbers, of the 5 Rumble winners, 4 haven't been in the main event but 4 out of 5 Rumble winners have also already been multiple time world champions so it doesn't really hurt their "Wrestlemania moment" since most em already had one. Also, Kane.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Dec 4, 2010 0:38:06 GMT -5
Another thing: exactly what are WWE tag-team rules?
The usual pattern of the matches includes the invariable spot where the babyface comes in to try to stop the heels from cheating and the ref escorts him back out of the ring, threatening disqualification -- so the heels cheat some more.
This I get: good ways for the heels to get over as heels and whatnot.
But also invariably, at some point later in the match someone not legally in the ring comes in to make the save, and the other guy not legally in the ring also comes in -- so we have four peopel going at it, with two of them being legal.
Why doesn't the ref order the illegal guys both out of the ring and DQ either or both teams (depending on whether they comply)? If it's against the rules the first time, why is it OK later?
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Dec 4, 2010 1:13:49 GMT -5
Vince has his daughter stalked, and kidnapped by The Undertaker, and Stephanie's the heel for wanting revenge on Vince.
Why do the refs always trust that the heels made a tag behind his back, but never trust the faces?
|
|
|
Post by "The Natural" Jeremy Grave on Dec 4, 2010 1:22:08 GMT -5
Why did Edge declare war on stupid, and now about 6 weeks later has Paul Bearer tied to a wheelchair?
Also, the first week of this was in London, how did he get him through 2 sets of customs and at least 1 plane ride with noone noticing an obvious kidnapping going on?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2010 1:50:45 GMT -5
Billy Kidman's heel turn in 2004. So Kidman accidentally concusses Chavo Guerrero (for real) at the end of a match with the Shooting Star Press and, as a result, starts questioning whether he should use the move whenever he gets in a position to do as. This cost he and Paul London several matches, and eventually the WWE Tag Team titles, as Kidman would abandon matches to go and mope backstage. Kidman refuses to explain what's going on, even during an in-ring interview segment with Josh Mathews, and is generally a bit of an emo douchebag. At No Mercy 2004, Kidman defeats Paul London in a grudge match where he'd be fired if he refused to compete. He wins with the Shooting Star Press but appears to injure Paul London in doing so - as EMTs stretcher him out. Kidman taunts the fans, saying they forced him to do it, then hits another SSP on the stretcher-bound Paul London. So ... how does that heel turn make sense? Kidman injures someone in a match with his finisher, so he starts having anxiety issues and can't hit the move. Eventually, this costs his team the tag titles after he walks out on a match - due to psychological issues. When he's eventually forced to hit the move, he suddenly turns full-blown heel, turns on the fans and attacks a stretcher-bound man he already injured. I never understood where that came from. I guess that the guy who'd been torturing himself for weeks out of fear of hurting someone, suddenly realised he liked hurting people ... or something. That was a really weird storyline. Billy Kidman just couldn't win in that scenario, he puts Chavo out of commission, he has remorse and doesn't want to wrestle anymore(at least for the time being). So Tazz buries him and says he's not a man if he doesn't wrestle, so then he gives the people what they want and wrestles, hits his SSP, and everyone's up in arms like "what did you do that for?". It was like the entire organization was in on a ruse to psychologically damage the poor guy, just everything he did at that point was wrong.
|
|
fw91
Patti Mayonnaise
FAN Idol All-Star: FAN Idol Season X and *Gavel* 2x Judges' Throwdown winner
Tribe has spoken for 2024 Mets
Posts: 39,064
Member is Online
|
Post by fw91 on Dec 4, 2010 2:02:15 GMT -5
oh how does grabbing the tights and putting feet on ropse make it harder for people to kick out? they should'nt prevent people from taking their shoulder off the mat
|
|
|
Post by deadstock on Dec 4, 2010 14:57:12 GMT -5
1. DBD music entrance yet he has no horse to ride on :/ 2. The crime type split . 3. King regal fading out when the WT was so close. 4. Jillian hall face mole story line. 5. Bobby lashley fans .
|
|
"Hollywood" Cactus Matt
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
You couldn't ask for a better custom title!
How do you spell "Goddess"? C-H-R-I-S-T-Y!
Posts: 15,300
|
Post by "Hollywood" Cactus Matt on Dec 4, 2010 23:32:29 GMT -5
oh how does grabbing the tights and putting feet on ropse make it harder for people to kick out? they should'nt prevent people from taking their shoulder off the mat Leverage. More weight is being applied to the shoulders, so it is harder to get a shoulder off the mat. EDIT: Don't believe me? Try this: lie on your bed, on your back with your feet facing the wall. Put your feet as high up as you can, and then try to lift a shoulder. Now, get as close as you can get to the wall and try it again. It will be more difficult as a result of leverage.
|
|
|
Post by chunkylover53 on Dec 5, 2010 0:06:47 GMT -5
Why does it hurt a wrestler when he misses a drop kick, yet it dosen't when he connects? Dosen't he land the same way in both cases?
Why are big guys who are used as jobbers built up as tough? Dosen't their win/loss record speak for itself?
Why aren't any wrestlers in jail for all the heinous acts they commit on one another?
How is being bizarre give you an edge in the Royal Rumble?
When you turn on one of your friends(be it heel or face), why is it you turn against ALL your other friends, and make a whole new group of friends? Some of which might've screwed you over or had you killed months, if not weeks earlier?
|
|
namso
AC Slater
Posts: 112
|
Post by namso on Dec 5, 2010 0:14:27 GMT -5
how a flying headbutt would hurt someone any more than a simple stomp.
|
|
|
Post by "The Natural" Jeremy Grave on Dec 5, 2010 0:21:38 GMT -5
how the Worm does ANYTHING.
|
|
The F'N Captain
King Koopa
I was captain **** till Captain America Beat the crap out of me and left me in a dumpster
Posts: 10,929
|
Post by The F'N Captain on Dec 5, 2010 2:49:54 GMT -5
Why John Cena is fired, yet assaulting contracted workers on WWE television and not in jail right now.
|
|
theshowstoppa
Don Corleone
This is why I like Brooke.
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by theshowstoppa on Dec 5, 2010 12:14:14 GMT -5
I've seen this question asked before, and I'm not sure why it confuses people. I've always understood it as every wrestler has a clause in their contract that states that should they lose the championship, they get at least one automatic rematch. Even without a clause in the contract, it would only make sense for the former champ to be the number one contender upon losing the belt wouldn't it? But there's been all these times that Cena was all like "NO REMATCH CLAUSE FOR ME THIS TIME" I always assumed the clause was on the contract for the match, not the Superstar's contract. Or there's always the Batista rematch clause.
|
|
|
Post by Pervy Stone Cold on Dec 5, 2010 12:20:02 GMT -5
1. DBD music entrance yet he has no horse to ride on :/ 2. The crime type split . 3. King regal fading out when the WT was so close. 4. Jillian hall face mole story line. 5. Bobby lashley fans . How that when Boogeyman devoured the mole, there was no blood.
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Dec 5, 2010 13:23:32 GMT -5
I've seen this question asked before, and I'm not sure why it confuses people. I've always understood it as every wrestler has a clause in their contract that states that should they lose the championship, they get at least one automatic rematch. Even without a clause in the contract, it would only make sense for the former champ to be the number one contender upon losing the belt wouldn't it? But there's been all these times that Cena was all like "NO REMATCH CLAUSE FOR ME THIS TIME" I always assumed the clause was on the contract for the match, not the Superstar's contract. Well it COULD be in the contract to for the match if WWE expects us to believe that wrestlers sign a contract before every match or every title match even. Still, the MITB briefcase holds a contract for a title match, so the rematch clause could just be written in there.
|
|