Edge stripped of the IC title in 2004

[Instant Classic]

due to being out of action for 4-6 weeks. Dean Ambrose hasn't defended the US title since October. Lawl

This isn't another Ambrise thread cause it's been like this for a couple years now.

[Deleted]

Honestly, I think Edge being stripped of the title was less because of the injury (speaking of, even by Edge standards he got hurt a lot in 2004) and more because his run at that point was falling flat on its face and they just wanted to get him away from the Jericho feud they had simmering and turn him heel.

[mizerable]

It didn't help that Edge himself was saying he was above the IC title, essentially.

God, I hated Edge so much in 2004 and not in the "I want to see him get beat" way.

[molson5]

I'm not sure I've ever once heard the "30 day" title defense rule mentioned on WWF television, that was always an NWA/early WCW thing. WWE, even going back to the 80s, has always had a more pragmatic approach, if a guy is injured, they'll vacate the title only if they feel like they need to for what they want to do storyline-wise.

[Instant Classic]

Jan 5, 2014 19:39:32 GMT -5 molson5 said:

I'm not sure I've ever once heard the "30 day" title defense rule mentioned on WWF television, that was always an NWA/early WCW thing. WWE, even going back to the 80s, has always had a more pragmatic approach, if a guy is injured, they'll vacate the title only if they feel like they need to for what they want to do storyline-wise.

I was watching the Jericho/Christian unforgiven promo and Bischoff mentioned it.

[Sparkybob]

It's only used when the GM feels like using it. There were times during the brand split that the world championship wasn't defended for 30 days but nothing happen. It's not something strictly followed. The Edge situation and Ambrose are not similar at all.

[Deleted]

Jan 5, 2014 19:09:23 GMT -5 mizerable said:

It didn't help that Edge himself was saying he was above the IC title, essentially.

God, I hated Edge so much in 2004 and not in the "I want to see him get beat" way.

He was pretty damn bad in 2004, yeah. SummerSlam was a good demonstration of that - even though Batista really at that point hadn't done a thing outside of be the guy who Flair tended to hang out with, he was way more popular than Edge was in his hometown.

[Amazing Kitsune]

Jan 5, 2014 19:39:32 GMT -5 molson5 said:

I'm not sure I've ever once heard the "30 day" title defense rule mentioned on WWF television, that was always an NWA/early WCW thing. WWE, even going back to the 80s, has always had a more pragmatic approach, if a guy is injured, they'll vacate the title only if they feel like they need to for what they want to do storyline-wise.

Nah, it's been mentioned a whole lot over the years. However, like any wrestling rule, they only observe it when it's convenient.

[KAMALARAMBO: BOOMSHAKALAKA!!!]

Jan 5, 2014 19:39:32 GMT -5 molson5 said:

I'm not sure I've ever once heard the "30 day" title defense rule mentioned on WWF television, that was always an NWA/early WCW thing. WWE, even going back to the 80s, has always had a more pragmatic approach, if a guy is injured, they'll vacate the title only if they feel like they need to for what they want to do storyline-wise.

Ventura mentioned it quite a bit to give Hogan shit. For example I think on the first ever Saturday Night's Main Event Ventura said Hogan's match with Nikolai Volkoff was a mandatory title defense because he had not defended it in 30 days.

[67 more]

Trish Stratus was out for like five months and wasn't stripped of the Women's belt.