|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Apr 9, 2019 11:16:16 GMT -5
Sweet Jesus, I’m losing my shit listening to Bryan Alvarez bitch about the re-match thing. It’s almost as if he hasn’t been watching the shows. So I need to yell this out, because I’m sick of hearing about it.
AT NO POINT DID THEY SAY THERE WAS NEVER GOING TO BE ANY TITLE RE-MATCHES EVER!!!!
The change was specifically about the guaranteed re-match when you lose a title. And even then, it was never once said that if you lose a title you never get a rematch, just that said re-match was no longer guaranteed. The Revival getting a title shot lost night didn’t “break the rules” or any of that shit. So can we please move on from this?!?!
|
|
dbrussel
Don Corleone
Former WOW employee
Posts: 1,853
|
Post by dbrussel on Apr 9, 2019 11:21:48 GMT -5
Alvarez is on the right here. Announcers pointed that Revival asked for a rematch after WM and the McMahons granted it. Then on wwe.com recap, they are saying that Bayley & Sasha will have to earn a match for the titles since there is no rematch clause anymore. Laughable.
|
|
|
|
Post by RedSmile on Apr 9, 2019 11:26:33 GMT -5
Solution: Don't listen to Bryan Alvarez
|
|
Spider2024
Patti Mayonnaise
Dedicated 6,666th post to Irontyger
I believe in Joe Hendry.
Posts: 39,710 
Member is Online
|
Post by Spider2024 on Apr 9, 2019 11:30:02 GMT -5
The whole hoopla around the rule change is indeed a little silly. Pretty much the only thing you could criticize the 'E for would be that every time they do give a direct title rematch, it's once again them booking & blurring rules to their specific liking even if it smacks the concept of consistency in its face (the most egregious of this I guess would be all the times that they slightly fudged Royal Rumble rules from year to year for various storyline reasons). Myself, for my efedding, I did away with the guaranteed rematch in favor of a guaranteed #1 contenders match for the outgoing champion. Which allows for a smooth transition to the next challenge. (And even then, I'll still on occasion just make it so that the on-screen authority figure gives the champ a rematch outright as the storyline sees fit to do so.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Apr 9, 2019 11:33:03 GMT -5
Alvarez is on the right here. Announcers pointed that Revival asked for a rematch after WM and the McMahons granted it. Then on wwe.com recap, they are saying that Bayley & Sasha will have to earn a match for the titles since there is no rematch clause anymore. Laughable. The McMahon’s showed favouritism? The devil you say!!! That’s never once happened in WWE before!!! Not once I say, has any WWE performer gotten helped out by favouritism by any of the McMahon family before, that would be breaking new storyline ground!!!! It would be revolutionary!!! EDIT: I hope that comes across as joking sarcastic, not asshole sarcastic. I mean no disrespect. |
|
|
|
Post by Bear Skin Rug on Apr 9, 2019 11:40:45 GMT -5
Alvarez is on the right here. Announcers pointed that Revival asked for a rematch after WM and the McMahons granted it. Then on wwe.com recap, they are saying that Bayley & Sasha will have to earn a match for the titles since there is no rematch clause anymore. Laughable. Any other, normal form of entertainment and this would be a big deal, but WWE fans have such low standards that stuff like this is not seen as important. |
|
|
|
Post by sunnytaker on Apr 9, 2019 11:44:11 GMT -5
i'd go with, the mcmahons clearly don't care about the raw tag titles so by giving the revival a rematch they won't have to think about it again for a little longer. I mean look at the division...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Apr 9, 2019 11:47:58 GMT -5
Alvarez is on the right here. Announcers pointed that Revival asked for a rematch after WM and the McMahons granted it. Then on wwe.com recap, they are saying that Bayley & Sasha will have to earn a match for the titles since there is no rematch clause anymore. Laughable. Any other, normal form of entertainment and this would be a big deal, but WWE fans have such low standards that stuff like this is not seen as important. Once again, 30+ year history of wrestling authority figures showing favouritism to heels over faces. Nothing about this is new ground, and none of it breaks any kayfabe. Boss like Wrestler A. Wrestler A gets treated better then Wrestler B. That’s at least 50% of the storylines the past 30 years. Why is it suddenly a sticking point now? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 11:48:13 GMT -5
They were never going to stick to that rule and was laughable to ever think they would.
That is like top 3 of their primary tropes...an easy excuse for them to avoid having to write anything worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
Post by "Evil Brood" Jackson Vanik on Apr 9, 2019 11:49:24 GMT -5
I agree with you largely although I think that the company should have chilled with rematches for a bit, even when they were earned. We didn't need two AJ-Bryan rematches. But rematches in general make sense when there's a reason for it. The UFC will grant them if someone had a really historic run or got a bad decision. They should just use them sparingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Apr 9, 2019 11:51:56 GMT -5
They were never going to stick to that rule and was laughable to ever think they would. They have stuck to the rule. “There is no longer a GUARANTEED re-match clause for former champs”. Meaning, some might get a re-match, some might not. It was fans, not WWE, who made the rule “No one ever gets an immediate re-match in any situation”. WWE never once said that EDIT: Agree with poster above, they probably should’ve laid off the re-matches a bit. But it’s not contradicting anything they’ve said |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 12:17:08 GMT -5
Alvarez is on the right here. Announcers pointed that Revival asked for a rematch after WM and the McMahons granted it. Then on wwe.com recap, they are saying that Bayley & Sasha will have to earn a match for the titles since there is no rematch clause anymore. Laughable. Any other, normal form of entertainment and this would be a big deal, but WWE fans have such low standards that stuff like this is not seen as important. Yeah I noticed this as well. It’s insane to me how logic does not have to be present to satisfy WWE fans. Even as cartoony as the 80’s were they at least made an attempt to explain minor details. The WWE today gives zero F’s and the fans are ok with it. |
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 42,350
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Apr 9, 2019 13:00:07 GMT -5
Somewhere in the multiverse there exists a WWE where Mania 35 was headlined by Hulk Hogan vs. the Iron Shiek for the WWE Heavyweight Championship, the final blowoff to their epic 35 year long feud for the title.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
HaHa U FaLL 4 LaVa TriK
Posts: 46,816 
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Apr 9, 2019 15:19:01 GMT -5
They were never going to stick to that rule and was laughable to ever think they would. They have stuck to the rule. “There is no longer a GUARANTEED re-match clause for former champs”. Meaning, some might get a re-match, some might not. It was fans, not WWE, who made the rule “No one ever gets an immediate re-match in any situation”. WWE never once said that EDIT: Agree with poster above, they probably should’ve laid off the re-matches a bit. But it’s not contradicting anything they’ve said People hear what they want to hear. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Petty on Apr 9, 2019 15:30:51 GMT -5
Alvarez is on the right here. Announcers pointed that Revival asked for a rematch after WM and the McMahons granted it. Then on wwe.com recap, they are saying that Bayley & Sasha will have to earn a match for the titles since there is no rematch clause anymore. Laughable. How is it laughable that something in the WWE is subject to the whims of the McMahon family? That's been the reality of almost everything in the WWE for its entire existence. |
|
4real
Wade Wilson
Posts: 28,628
|
Post by 4real on Apr 9, 2019 15:32:52 GMT -5
Alvarez is on the right here. Announcers pointed that Revival asked for a rematch after WM and the McMahons granted it. Then on wwe.com recap, they are saying that Bayley & Sasha will have to earn a match for the titles since there is no rematch clause anymore. Laughable. I mean Dash Wilder earned his rematch at the HOF. |
|
)
