|
|
Post by The Jeebus on Feb 11, 2007 1:35:41 GMT -5
It means something, more then it use to actually. Before the brands split, the title would change hands almost monthly with the exception of a few reigns. Now, there are actually prolonged reigns and that makes me care. Except that there are like, 10 world titles in WWE alone and one of them spins. And if you can't win any of them, you go to TNA and win their world title. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2007 1:40:38 GMT -5
It means something, more then it use to actually. Before the brands split, the title would change hands almost monthly with the exception of a few reigns. Now, there are actually prolonged reigns and that makes me care. Except that there are like, 10 world titles in WWE alone and one of them spins. I don't buy that as any reason that the titles don't mean anything. They're all in WWE but they're all in different brands, how do you explain how the fact that Smackdown has a World Championship in any way affects Raw's World Championship? That's like saying the ECW World Title lacks prestige because TNA has a World Title, they're different brands, so it's not a big deal. I already said but I think it got the last post of the page curse, the fact that if HBK or Undertaker winning their respective titles is gonna be a huge deal to fans like us prove that the titles do mean something. |
|
|
|
Post by Just "Dan" is Fine, Thank You on Feb 11, 2007 2:36:32 GMT -5
In my opinion, the title belt only means something during a long heel run. Face champions win matches and hoorah, they're still on top. When a hated heel has the belt for nigh on a year then the fans CRAVE for their man to win it. THAT is the only time the value of the belt is revealed. And that's why fans exploded when RVD and Jeff Hardy nearly won Undertaker's Undisputed Title.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Jeebus on Feb 11, 2007 6:18:51 GMT -5
Except that there are like, 10 world titles in WWE alone and one of them spins. I don't buy that as any reason that the titles don't mean anything. They're all in WWE but they're all in different brands, how do you explain how the fact that Smackdown has a World Championship in any way affects Raw's World Championship? Do you really think JBL, Booker or Mysterio would have ever won the world title on Smackdown if they were mixed in with Raw's roster; namely Triple H, John Cena, Edge, Shawn Michaels, Batista (at the time)? This reduces not only the number of credible challengers for each world title (as well as US, IC and tag titles) but the credibility of the title. Sure, a Raw wrestler is restricted to winning a Raw title, but if Raw has a better main event there'll be less interest for a SD title match on a dual-brand PPV. Compare the main event of Backlash 2004 to the main event of Judgment Day 2004. Why, if you've already ordered the former, even consider ordering the latter? |
|
|
|
Post by metalmike on Feb 11, 2007 7:36:58 GMT -5
I understand peoples reasonings as to way passing the belt around devalues it. But on the flip side surly having a belt with lots of people competing for it and trying to better each other makes it seem more valuble?
|
|
