goc

Well this one is very likely true. The amount that Vince paid for WCW & the whole tape library was insanely low, lower than some of the other offers that were on the table for WCW. If I recall correctly the guy who brokered the deal then went to work for WWE shortly after it was done.

I like David better as a heel than I do as a face. Kerry didn't really have a full run as a heel he just came in for a few weeks to support David but there is a heel promo or two from him in those youtube videos. Kevin never worked heel as far as I know.

Add Jack Swagger to that list as he's the biggest name everyone likes to drop when they're talking about people who didn't deserve to be World Champion. And he likely never would have been, or at least would have actually been sufficiently built up to that level if not for that stupid fucking briefcase.

Their main focus the last two years is to keep Roman strong, and the whole gimmick is that the MITB is pretty much a guaranteed title win. There's no reason for them to create a second title (and thereby risk recreating the main issue that sunk the brand split the last time) unless they wanted another belt for the briefcase holder to win So it took like 8 years for the god awful unforgiveable sin of each brand having a main title to "sink" the brand split? You'd think if it was such a terrible thing it wouldn't have taken that long. You'd almost think the real reason Smackdown stopped being a viable touring group is because Jeff Hardy left and then they tried to replace their other big draw Rey Mysterio with Randy Orton. They want another belt because they are going to do another split and they want each show to have a main title. They aren't making a new belt just for the fucking MITB winner. Yes, there is some sense to having two titles. Each brand gets to feel like they are equal. The issues with two titles comes from when they clearly present a show as more important (ie Raw). When Brock and Triple H were champions, no issues. Both things felt important. When Raw was clearly the A show and Smackdown the B show, then the Smackdown title became an IC level belt and just devalued everything. I'm not sure whether to call this a flat out lie or just a wild over exaggeration. Undertaker, Batista, CM Punk, Jeff Hardy, Mark Henry, heel Daniel Bryan, even Edge who I fucking hate all felt WAY more important as the champion on Smackdown than any IC champ in the last 20 years.

Their main focus the last two years is to keep Roman strong, and the whole gimmick is that the MITB is pretty much a guaranteed title win. There's no reason for them to create a second title (and thereby risk recreating the main issue that sunk the brand split the last time) unless they wanted another belt for the briefcase holder to win So it took like 8 years for the god awful unforgiveable sin of each brand having a main title to "sink" the brand split? You'd think if it was such a terrible thing it wouldn't have taken that long. You'd almost think the real reason Smackdown stopped being a viable touring group is because Jeff Hardy left and then they tried to replace their other big draw Rey Mysterio with Randy Orton. They want another belt because they are going to do another split and they want each show to have a main title. They aren't making a new belt just for the fucking MITB winner.

If Reigns is going to lose the title it shouldn't be by some lame ass MITB cash in. Wouldn't actually defeating him elevate someone more than the same old tired shit we've seen for a decade now?

I'm with Johnny , but have Jericho fail on the cash in and let it be his swan song. I'll hop on board this bandwagon because winning the title via cash in is such a lame and overdone way for the title to change hands now. And Jericho wouldn't be hurt by a failed cash in like some of the other guys would.

So this topic seems to get a lot of views after I make a put up a show but no one ever posts in here so if someone besides google & facebook bots are actually reading this pop in and leave a comment. I can fantasy book in my head a lot faster than I can type it out if I'm just doing this solely for my own amusement.

Kevin Owens needs to turn babyface anyway. He's just not working out as a heel. He gets way too many cheers to be a top heel.

70s Lawler/Dundee is pretty awesome too when you consider that Dundee got his wife to put her hair up for a match. Unfortunately we don't have that on tape.

That looks like it's during David's heel run in Florida, which is awesome and should be watched by everyone. I've seen most (but not all) of what is on youtube from that run and don't remember seeing anything with David vs. Barry. That match with Barry, Gran Apollo & Kerry Von Erich probably had a very large contingent of screaming female fans with those 3.

I've seen some people painting him as some kind of evil super villain but I have no sympathy for Gawker considering what they did to get on Thiel's bad side.. Outing people is not journalism.

This was a really good show. I could listen to Kenny Bolin tell stories all day. And boy did Glen Goza really screw up his own song on that version.

There are actually a lot of guys who are good who don't get on TV hardly at all. I think they definitely have the talent to do a brand split now. Guys like Titus, Swagger, The Colons, Heath Slater and guys of that ilk are guys who could do a lot more in a new brand split.

https://twitter.com/rohcary/status/735500312396615680 Is it right that Flair stiffed him? No, of course not. But what did Cary expect? He knowingly did business with an alcoholic who has chronic financial issues. This really makes ROH look super bush league, and it wouldn't surprise me if Cary loses his job over it. I almost think he should. What an idiot. Clearly he isn't going to get his money back by confronting Flair. But I don't blame him for being upset about it. Flair signed an agreement to show up for 4-5 shows as the "ROH ambassador" and only showed up to one of them. How is Cary the bad guy for expecting someone to honor his word on a signed contract? He sued him over it in 2010 but Sinclair dropped the suit when they took over.

The thing about these stupid conspiracy theories is that they change to fit the argument. I know he wasn't fired, but it isn't common to hear people say he was. Sure, Vince didn't know that Savage was sleeping with his daughter in a locker room full of carnies looking to stab each other in the back. He only got put into the Hall of Fame after he died, because Vince is glad he's dead. Seriously, I don't really take any of it seriously. I know Lanny Poffo talked about how Randy didn't want to go in the HOF unless WWE also inducted Lanny and their Dad. I'm not sure if that was something he just told Lanny or that he'd been contacted by WWE about it and made that demand and that's why he didn't go in earlier.

If more than one person is the top star, then nobody is the top star. Because that really hurt Cena from becoming the top guy during the original brand split. Seems pretty simple that someone could be the top guy on Raw and someone else would be the top guy on Smackdown but then just accepting the very simple logic of that (and how that would keep a top guy for each touring group) would eliminate hundreds of message board posts and tweets bitching about "omg devalued titles!" Except that the top guy on Smackdown will almost inevitably be slotted as a B+ player, and just like the last time it leads to no one going to SD branded shows. That didn't become a problem until they tried to make Orton the top babyface on SD and then it turned around again once they put the title on Mark Henry. Smackdown was out drawing Raw a lot of times based off the strength of Rey as a draw and he was never even really presented as the top guy of the brand.

I've read conflicting stuff about whether or not they will be on both shows. They actually did do a thing there after unifying the two sets of tag titles in 2009 where the tag champs could appear on all of the shows. That led to some good stuff from Miz/Morrison and later the Jericho/Big Show team. I think there are enough teams now though to where they could have two sets of tag titles. The upside to that is we'd also get a set of tag belts that aren't as ugly as the ones they have now.

If more than one person is the top star, then nobody is the top star. Because that really hurt Cena from becoming the top guy during the original brand split. Seems pretty simple that someone could be the top guy on Raw and someone else would be the top guy on Smackdown but then just accepting the very simple logic of that (and how that would keep a top guy for each touring group) would eliminate hundreds of message board posts and tweets bitching about "omg devalued titles!"

Funny how with all that star power Smackdown still had more viewers. And before Cena really got hot they were outdrawing them on house shows too.

Obviously we all know the more well known ridiculous pro wrestling conspiracy theories like the famous 90s conspiracy that the original Ultimate Warrior died and was replaced by someone else and the very disturbed people who claim Chris Benoit is innocent and that Kevin Sullivan is the one actually responsible. But surely there are some more ridiculous theories out there that aren't quite as well known as those that can be shared in this thread. Just the other day I was reading a topic on the ever awful Wrestlingforum.com speculating about Daniel Bryan's tweets and whether he was still trying to prepare for a comeback. Which then lead into someone speculating that his injuries really aren't as bad as he claimed, he made up the thing about having a lesion that causes seizures and it was all a ploy to try and get out of his contract so he can go to New Japan.

I didn't say you were, I've simply never understood the idea that was prevalent during the time period and apparently still exists that Raw was presented as so much more "important" than Smackdown during that era. It just feels like one of those things that gets presented as fact just because people keep saying it and yet when you actually examine the reasons people give for why it's true they just don't hold up.

Why in the world should I care about what WWE presents as the "A show" when the "B-Show" is so much better? Even 07-09 ECW was better than Raw! And it's really not like there was some huge difference between the way Raw & Smackdown were treated anyway, the biggest thing people can point to that's actually legit is that on the co-branded PPVs the big Raw match would usually go on last. Who cares?

Because even then, Smackdown was all about showing replays for RAW & whenever something important had to happen, like an announcement or debuting/returning wrestler they would do it on RAW. Smackdown was the better show for a long time but WWE themselves never presented it that way. I watched a ton of Smackdown during that era and the idea that it was "all about showing replays for Raw" is just not even close to true. They also seemed to debut new wrestlers on Smackdown FAR more often than on Raw. Cena, Batista & Orton were the top 3 guys of that era and they all debuted on Smackdown!

This is the stuff I never understood about the "I only watch Raw" crowd during the brand split. How in the world did Raw feel like "must-watch TV" during the first 3-4 years of the brand split? Why was HHH killing off every babyface that got over and having long and boring promos "must-watch TV" over Smackdown tearing it up? People are clearly forgetting that we got like at least 8-9 good years of Smackdown during that period so the idea that the goodness of the brand split was short lived or anything just makes no sense to me. It didn't go to shit until they started having Raw as a "Super Show" where SD guys could show up there. The Sheamus run was good though. At least from a matches perspective.