|
Post by "Trickster Dogg" James Jesse on Dec 3, 2013 20:52:46 GMT -5
The WWE would quite clearly like you to believe every single thing they do is of epic importance. Therefore things like the value of titles is based solely on the fans opinions of those titles. Maybe. Then again, if one were to treat everything WWE does as being epically important, then other fans' reactions that do not accord such a view would inherently be their fault because they don't match one's worldview as to what WWE programming actually is, no? Because no such possible divergence of opinion could actually be sustainable, let alone possible.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 3, 2013 20:56:31 GMT -5
The WWE would quite clearly like you to believe every single thing they do is of epic importance. Therefore things like the value of titles is based solely on the fans opinions of those titles. Except that's blatantly not true given the way THEY booked the belt to open shows and such. It was clearly the number one title for a few years when HHH had it etc as has been mentioned, and it's clearly NOT been booked as equal to the WWE title for a few years now. Acting like the people watching have any say on that is just silly. what part of EVERYTHING did you not get? If EVERYTHING is epically important than the opener is too. But my main point is the WHC only lost it's prestige to individuals watching. If anyone in the audience chooses to consider the WHC as equal to the WWE title then to them it is, and it's their right to judge it that way
|
|
Professor Chaos
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bringer of Destruction and Maker of Doom
Posts: 16,332
|
Post by Professor Chaos on Dec 3, 2013 20:58:04 GMT -5
I was always WTF about it when Bischoff just brought it back and handed it to Triple H. Should've had a tournament.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 3, 2013 20:58:31 GMT -5
Never had any, as far as I'm concerned. I've always viewed it as inferior to the WWE Championship
|
|
|
Post by "Trickster Dogg" James Jesse on Dec 3, 2013 20:58:46 GMT -5
Except that's blatantly not true given the way THEY booked the belt to open shows and such. It was clearly the number one title for a few years when HHH had it etc as has been mentioned, and it's clearly NOT been booked as equal to the WWE title for a few years now. Acting like the people watching have any say on that is just silly. what part of EVERYTHING did you not get? If EVERYTHING is epically important than the opener is too. But my main point is the WHC only lost it's prestige to individuals watching. If anyone in the audience chooses to consider the WHC as equal to the WWE title then to them it is, and it's their right to judge it that way
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Dec 3, 2013 21:18:13 GMT -5
But my main point is the WHC only lost it's prestige to individuals watching. If anyone in the audience chooses to consider the WHC as equal to the WWE title then to them it is, and it's their right to judge it that way I love that attitude. "You think our product sucks? That's your fault, not ours." It's like you try to find value for vomit on the sidewalk. Just understand that WWE fails. The people would accept something IF YOU GAVE THEM A REASON TO ACCEPT IT. I find it baffling that you don't for one second question the booking of the WHC.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 3, 2013 21:31:05 GMT -5
But my main point is the WHC only lost it's prestige to individuals watching. If anyone in the audience chooses to consider the WHC as equal to the WWE title then to them it is, and it's their right to judge it that way I love that attitude. "You think our product sucks? That's your fault, not ours." It's like you try to find value for vomit on the sidewalk. Just understand that WWE fails. The people would accept something IF YOU GAVE THEM A REASON TO ACCEPT IT. I find it baffling that you don't for one second question the booking of the WHC. if there's been questionable champions for it there's been extenuating circumstances with the case of injuries and there's also been questionable champs for all of the other belts as well. And there's also instances such as Alberto Del Rio where when storylines don't have him in the hunt for one he's is the hunt for the other. In fact I think most of the WWE champs treat the two belts interchangeably. Certainly Cena's the first guy to have held both belts to come out while WHC and say "I want the WWE belt," which kind of says something And generally when I'm watching something I like, like wrestling, I accept it until you give me a reason not to. I don't watch one show and think "okay your last show was decent, prove to me that I should keep watching this week," every single episode. I want to watch and prefer to enjoy the show. If there's something that really bugs me I'll mute the TV or flip away for a bit, sure. But I don't go in expecting to do it or preemptively pissed off about the possibility
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Dec 3, 2013 21:39:13 GMT -5
And generally when I'm watching something I like, like wrestling, I accept it until you give me a reason not to. I don't watch one show and think "okay your last show was decent, prove to me that I should keep watching this week," every single episode. I want to watch and prefer to enjoy the show. If there's something that really bugs me I'll mute the TV or flip away for a bit, sure. But I don't go in expecting to do it or preemptively pissed off about the possibility Who said anything about that? It's not like I turned over on the WHC overnight. As mentioned, it took many efforts on WWE's behalf to make me not care. I used to love the title, but with no brand extension and having it open shows and be given to guys who are questionable at best, then yes WWE didn't do what they should have done. If you have 2 belts that are considered "the best", one is always going to be preferred over the other if there's no barrier for either. There's no preemptive criticism. But I'm not going to get a lobotomy to forget their many shortcomings with the booking. If something sucks now, I'm not going to think it's going to be amazing the next week. If I have a bad experience at a restaurant, I'm not going to go back next week expecting the time of my life.
|
|
|
Post by Error on Dec 3, 2013 21:43:10 GMT -5
I was always WTF about it when Bischoff just brought it back and handed it to Triple H. Should've had a tournament. Except Triple H had beaten Undertaker just a week prior (and the WWE Champion the Rock two weeks before) to become the number 1 contender to the title and thus the champ when Brock walked out on RAW. It wasn't like they just said "f*** it, give Hunter a belt with no logic behind it".
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Dec 3, 2013 21:53:22 GMT -5
I was always WTF about it when Bischoff just brought it back and handed it to Triple H. Should've had a tournament. Except Triple H had beaten Undertaker just a week prior (and the WWE Champion the Rock two weeks before) to become the number 1 contender to the title and thus the champ when Brock walked out on RAW. It wasn't like they just said "f*** it, give Hunter a belt with no logic behind it". Yeah, that stuff made sense and made Eric seem more smarmy for it. (And also, I saw that match live. Yes, that's me fulfilling my yearly "I went to MSG in 2002" quota)
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 3, 2013 21:54:49 GMT -5
Except that's blatantly not true given the way THEY booked the belt to open shows and such. It was clearly the number one title for a few years when HHH had it etc as has been mentioned, and it's clearly NOT been booked as equal to the WWE title for a few years now. Acting like the people watching have any say on that is just silly. what part of EVERYTHING did you not get? If EVERYTHING is epically important than the opener is too. But my main point is the WHC only lost it's prestige to individuals watching. If anyone in the audience chooses to consider the WHC as equal to the WWE title then to them it is, and it's their right to judge it that way I got it fine, you're just wrong. No need for the attitude/all caps either, so stop that.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 3, 2013 21:57:15 GMT -5
And generally when I'm watching something I like, like wrestling, I accept it until you give me a reason not to. I don't watch one show and think "okay your last show was decent, prove to me that I should keep watching this week," every single episode. I want to watch and prefer to enjoy the show. If there's something that really bugs me I'll mute the TV or flip away for a bit, sure. But I don't go in expecting to do it or preemptively pissed off about the possibility Who said anything about that? It's not like I turned over on the WHC overnight. As mentioned, it took many efforts on WWE's behalf to make me not care. I used to love the title, but with no brand extension and having it open shows and be given to guys who are questionable at best, then yes WWE didn't do what they should have done. If you have 2 belts that are considered "the best", one is always going to be preferred over the other if there's no barrier for either. There's no preemptive criticism. But I'm not going to get a lobotomy to forget their many shortcomings with the booking. If something sucks now, I'm not going to think it's going to be amazing the next week. If I have a bad experience at a restaurant, I'm not going to go back next week expecting the time of my life. it's hard to be neutral about something you've experienced before, if you're going in needing proof that it will be good, you're expecting it to be bad
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 3, 2013 22:00:42 GMT -5
what part of EVERYTHING did you not get? If EVERYTHING is epically important than the opener is too. But my main point is the WHC only lost it's prestige to individuals watching. If anyone in the audience chooses to consider the WHC as equal to the WWE title then to them it is, and it's their right to judge it that way I got it fine, you're just wrong. No need for the attitude/all caps either, so stop that. considering this thread is based on opinion, with no real agreement between responders I don't think an answer of "Never because I don't think it did." is legit. I mean you're using evidence that it went on first some as proof it wasn't important? Well, frankly the only time I care about match placement is if a match I want to see overlaps with the time I need to walk my dogs.
|
|
|
Post by "Trickster Dogg" James Jesse on Dec 3, 2013 22:09:05 GMT -5
Who said anything about that? It's not like I turned over on the WHC overnight. As mentioned, it took many efforts on WWE's behalf to make me not care. I used to love the title, but with no brand extension and having it open shows and be given to guys who are questionable at best, then yes WWE didn't do what they should have done. If you have 2 belts that are considered "the best", one is always going to be preferred over the other if there's no barrier for either. There's no preemptive criticism. But I'm not going to get a lobotomy to forget their many shortcomings with the booking. If something sucks now, I'm not going to think it's going to be amazing the next week. If I have a bad experience at a restaurant, I'm not going to go back next week expecting the time of my life. it's hard to be neutral about something you've experienced before, if you're going in needing proof that it will be good, you're expecting it to be bad Neat argumentative trick. "You see, you don't KNOW if getting hit in the head is going to be bad unless you actually ARE hit in the head with a hammer. And even then, you don't KNOW if the second hit to the head is going to be bad as the first UNTIL you are hit in the head a second time." "You see, you don't KNOW if watching Raw is going to be bad unless you actually DO watch next week. And even then, you don't KNOW if the storyline will pay off next week building of this week's TV program UNLESS you actually watch the show." I.E. If everything is new and different, then there's no way of *really* knowing if the second hammer blow to the head will be more or less painful than the first, or whether or not next week's episode of Raw will be more or less painful to watch than last week's, so you should actually try to get hit in the head or tune in to find out. A fascinating empiricism. EDIT: BECAUSE, it's not wrong. At least, if we're adhering to a strict definition of empiricism. Unfortunately, the social, historical, and narrative complexities of television production and viewing are not that sympathetic towards such a strict definition. It's not to say that it's wrong. Not at all, it's simply atypical. Most people don't like doing unpleasant things or having unpleasurable things done to them. As such, if people find one or more parts of WWE programming to be less than fun, it's no surprise that would critique it because a) they want it to be better and b) that they really don't want to not have fun watching it again.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 3, 2013 22:18:09 GMT -5
it's hard to be neutral about something you've experienced before, if you're going in needing proof that it will be good, you're expecting it to be bad Neat argumentative trick. "You see, you don't KNOW if getting hit in the head is going to be bad unless you actually ARE hit in the head with a hammer. And even then, you don't KNOW if the second hit to the head is going to be bad as the first UNTIL you are hit in the head a second time." "You see, you don't KNOW if watching Raw is going to be bad unless you actually DO watch next week. And even then, you don't KNOW if the storyline will pay off next week building of this week's TV program UNLESS you actually watch the show." I.E. If everything is new and different, then there's no way of *really* knowing if the second hammer blow to the head will be more or less painful than the first, or whether or not next week's episode of Raw will be more or less painful to watch than last week's, so you should actually try to get hit in the head or tune in to find out. A fascinating empiricism. if experience is bad enough you're comparing it to being hit with a hammer then why not avoid it? Because there's only one result of getting hit with a hammer See for me I think of it more like a pizza. I like pizza, but I'll certainly acknowledge there's different qualities. Some days it'll be like something from restaurant, others like a Tombstone out of the oven, down to a piece from a high school lunch
|
|
|
Post by "Trickster Dogg" James Jesse on Dec 3, 2013 22:38:24 GMT -5
Neat argumentative trick. "You see, you don't KNOW if getting hit in the head is going to be bad unless you actually ARE hit in the head with a hammer. And even then, you don't KNOW if the second hit to the head is going to be bad as the first UNTIL you are hit in the head a second time." "You see, you don't KNOW if watching Raw is going to be bad unless you actually DO watch next week. And even then, you don't KNOW if the storyline will pay off next week building of this week's TV program UNLESS you actually watch the show." I.E. If everything is new and different, then there's no way of *really* knowing if the second hammer blow to the head will be more or less painful than the first, or whether or not next week's episode of Raw will be more or less painful to watch than last week's, so you should actually try to get hit in the head or tune in to find out. A fascinating empiricism. if experience is bad enough you're comparing it to being hit with a hammer then why not avoid it? Because there's only one result of getting hit with a hammer See for me I think of it more like a pizza. I like pizza, but I'll certainly acknowledge there's different qualities. Some days it'll be like something from restaurant, others like a Tombstone out of the oven, down to a piece from a high school lunch Because in a scenario of getting hit unawares from behind with a hammer to the head, I have no control over the situation. Much like the WWE product: I have no means whatsoever of affecting, positively or negatively, the product one way or the other. If I don't buy a PPV or a t-shirt, someone else will. If I don't cheer or boo for wrestler X, someone else will. Even if I cheer a heel and boo a babyface contrary to the booking, or chant random things, that's all incorporated into the excitement of the show. Even if every single fan at Wrestlemania decided in the main event to sit on their hands and remain silent, the WWE machine would keep working. If I buy a number of WWE shares, I don't own the controlling majority, so WWE has little incentive to actually cater to my opinion. I have no choice other than to not watch. And not watching is pretty easy, let's not fool ourselves. But my individual action within a circumscribed setting (being an active and participating fan) doesn't affect or change WWE one jot. It simply reinforces the reality and identity that WWE and the people involved create for themselves. WWE is like the Borg: resistance is futile. Sticking with the hammer analogy, if I smack my thumb repeatedly with a hammer and don't do anything to stop that, then it's my fault. But if I keep doing the same thing over and over and over again expecting a different result each time, then I'm also insane. At what point does watching WWE become insanity? When the product thrives on inanity. But then again, trash and treasure, relativity, and all that.
|
|
|
Post by The Portable Stove on Dec 3, 2013 23:03:22 GMT -5
The WWE would quite clearly like you to believe every single thing they do is of epic importance. Therefore things like the value of titles is based solely on the fans opinions of those titles. This is pretty accurate. In fact, I remember when the Intercontinental Champion was the top guy in the company. Joking aside, to me, it was when Rey won it. Rey's great, but for the life of me, I couldn't buy him as champion. Him getting beaten continuously until Booker won it didn't do him any favors. So yeah, it went from six feet under to twelve feet under when Swagger won it. And promptly lost it to Rey.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 3, 2013 23:09:40 GMT -5
The WWE would quite clearly like you to believe every single thing they do is of epic importance. Therefore things like the value of titles is based solely on the fans opinions of those titles. This is pretty accurate. In fact, I remember when the Intercontinental Champion was the top guy in the company. Joking aside, to me, it was when Rey won it. Rey's great, but for the life of me, I couldn't buy him as champion. Him getting beaten continuously until Booker won it didn't do him any favors. So yeah, it went from six feet under to twelve feet under when Swagger won it. And promptly lost it to Rey. so I guess the WWE title was completely buried when Rey won it? Damn good thing Cena came back that night
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Dec 3, 2013 23:13:26 GMT -5
This is pretty accurate. In fact, I remember when the Intercontinental Champion was the top guy in the company. Joking aside, to me, it was when Rey won it. Rey's great, but for the life of me, I couldn't buy him as champion. Him getting beaten continuously until Booker won it didn't do him any favors. So yeah, it went from six feet under to twelve feet under when Swagger won it. And promptly lost it to Rey. so I guess the WWE title was completely buried when Rey won it? Damn good thing Cena came back that night Yeah, for all of 40 minutes? Not that I wanted Mysterio as champ, but why even give him the title if you don't trust him to carry it? It's a catch 22 in my mind. In a way, he didn't have it long. On the other, he shouldn't have gotten it to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by The Portable Stove on Dec 3, 2013 23:17:56 GMT -5
This is pretty accurate. In fact, I remember when the Intercontinental Champion was the top guy in the company. Joking aside, to me, it was when Rey won it. Rey's great, but for the life of me, I couldn't buy him as champion. Him getting beaten continuously until Booker won it didn't do him any favors. So yeah, it went from six feet under to twelve feet under when Swagger won it. And promptly lost it to Rey. so I guess the WWE title was completely buried when Rey won it? Damn good thing Cena came back that night Sure, if Rey had an actual reign and wasn't champ for a few hours. Though, you can make an argument that even the WWE championship wasn't important between the time that Cena won it from Rey, until the Rock won it from Punk.
|
|