Coffey Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 I'm going to predict the main event for those Pay-Per-Views: Vengeance: Randy Orton Vs. Christian Night of Champions: Randy Orton Vs. Christian Hell in a Cell: Randy Orton Vs. Christian It's the feud that just don't die! At least C.M. Punk and John Cena will move on to the different things. The speculation of Alberto Del Rio cashing in his Money in the Bank briefcase and the involvement of Triple H give "outs" so to speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 I'm going to predict the main event for those Pay-Per-Views: Vengeance: Randy Orton Vs. Christian Night of Champions: Randy Orton Vs. Christian Hell in a Cell: Randy Orton Vs. Christian It's the feud that just don't die! Come on, they can't be building up Mark Henry for nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Holding a tournament for the belt was a logical decision. By all accounts Punk vacated the title. Did he? Sunday: Punk wins Title. Monday: Punk does various stunts with Title (baseball game? Frig?) Monday Evening: Vince strips Punk of title Monday Evening: Vince puts on Tourney I don't think there is any account of Punk vacating the title before Vince's decision to hold a tourney. If he wanted to vacate it, he wouldn't have taken off with it... not put it in his frig... or kept carrying it around until he came back. In fact, when he came back he was claiming to be the champ. The general storyline was that Vince said Punk wasn't the champ anymore since Vince has the power to do it (his company after all), and decide to create a new house champ. In the storyline, Punk never stopped claiming he was the champ, and clearly is claiming to be champ heading into SummerSlam. So there is WWE storyline "logic" for the tourney, but not due to it being vacated. I think people's problems with the tourney is that it was just a dumbass storyline to do from start to finish to epilogue. Russo can explain the "logic" behind some of his storyline decisions. Doesn't mean that the decision/choice wasn't a bad one. John For weeks Punk said if he won he was leaving. He did not sign a new contract and left thru the crowd with the belt. Vince considering it vacated is perfectly logical. Vince not waiting at least a week to hold a tourney is the reason he was ousted. You need to watch some TNA or the shit where the laptop was given full authority to see a wrestling angle not make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 For weeks Punk said if he won he was leaving. He said he was taking the belt with him. Which he did. He did not sign a new contract and left thru the crowd with the belt. Exactly. Vince considering it vacated is perfectly logical. Vince not waiting at least a week to hold a tourney is the reason he was ousted. Vince didn't consider it vacated. He considered Punk an ungrateful turd, and took the "title" away from him. If Punk gave it back, he would have vacated it. You need to watch some TNA or the shit where the laptop was given full authority to see a wrestling angle not make sense. "I have a message from the Raw General Manager..." -Michael Cole John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 He said he was taking the belt with him. Which he did. How is that not vacating the title? In a Kayfabe sense the only thing Vince did wrong was not wait thirty days or at least a week. "I have a message from the Raw General Manager..." -Michael Cole It never made sense or logic to it. It was something the writers came up with to be lazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 The problem with Vince just stripping Punk of the title is that there have been plenty of "Vince hates this champion and doesn't want them to hold the belt" angles in the past. In those, he wasn't able to just say "gimme that belt!" and make it happen. He always had to set up some special stipulations or had a wacky plan to fuck them out of the title. Punk still has the proverbial 30 days to defend his title, so McMahon theoretically has no authority to announce a tournament for a new championship that quickly. And even the excuse that Punk doesn't work here anymore would be a continuity error, considering the number of times we've seen angles revolving around someone who allegedly isn't an official employee. Nobody on Earth, including his mom, calls him Phil Brooks.What do they call him, and why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 He said he was taking the belt with him. Which he did. How is that not vacating the title? In a Kayfabe sense the only thing Vince did wrong was not wait thirty days or at least a week. Punk considered himself the champ. From Punk's perspective in the storyline, he was going to win the title from Cena and leave with the title. Go back and read Matt's Montreal Manifesto. So Punk *didn't* vacate the title. He didn't give it up. In fact, we all were laughing our assess off at it sitting in his frig, and him taking it to Wrigley. Vince *stripped* the title from Punk. He was never going to mention the turd's name again, and was going to crown a new champ. Stan Hansen didn't vacate the title in 1986. Verne stripped him of it and gave it to Nick. Flair didn't vacate the title in 1991. Herd stripped him of it, and had Barry and Lex wrestle over it. Hogan didn't vacate the title in 1991. Tunney stripped him of it and put it up for grabs at the Rumble. "I have a message from the Raw General Manager..." -Michael Cole It never made sense or logic to it. It was something the writers came up with to be lazy. That's kind of what people are saying about the tourney: It didn't make a damn but of sense. It didn't have any logic to it. It was just something Creative came up with because the lazy and a bunch of fucking idiots/doufusses. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 John: I dunno about where you live, but here it's spelled fridge. That's been bugging the hell out of me. Where did you learn that it's spelled "frig"? Also, I don't think it's fair to lay all the blame for the WWE's creative problems on the much-insulted Hollywood writers. By all accounts, the management's process for coming up with these ideas is broken beyond repair. Don't they require every writer to come up with their own separate script for Raw every week, and then Vince pieces the show together from different parts of each? That, and Vince's current ADHD when it comes to changing his mind, pretty much conspire to fuck up every possible long-term angle before any of the writers put the first word on paper. It doesn't matter if they're talented or not, Shakespeare couldn't consistently turn in great work under these circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 The problem with Vince just stripping Punk of the title is that there have been plenty of "Vince hates this champion and doesn't want them to hold the belt" angles in the past. In those, he wasn't able to just say "gimme that belt!" and make it happen. He always had to set up some special stipulations or had a wacky plan to fuck them out of the title. Punk still has the proverbial 30 days to defend his title, so McMahon theoretically has no authority to announce a tournament for a new championship that quickly. And even the excuse that Punk doesn't work here anymore would be a continuity error, considering the number of times we've seen angles revolving around someone who allegedly isn't an official employee. I think some of us were bouncing around why Trip simply didn't change the Title Tourney into a #1 Contenders Tourney while recognizing Punk was still the champ and Trip tries to clear things up with Punk. From a storyline standpoint since then, Trip clearly recognizes Punk is still the/a champ. He's allowed himself to get stuck with Rey-to-Cena as a champ as well, and made a title vs title match to clear things up and create an "undisputed champion". But the only reason there's a "disputed champion" is because Trip didn't pull the plug on the tourney. Since Trip was in change before the Finals of the tourney, he certainly could have pulled the plug on it, or changed it. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 John: I dunno about where you live, but here it's spelled fridge. That's been bugging the hell out of me. Where did you learn that it's spelled "frig"? The belt in the fridge was Punk's way of frigging the WWE. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Also, I don't think it's fair to lay all the blame for the WWE's creative problems on the much-insulted Hollywood writers. By all accounts, the management's process for coming up with these ideas is broken beyond repair. Don't they require every writer to come up with their own separate script for Raw every week, and then Vince pieces the show together from different parts of each? That, and Vince's current ADHD when it comes to changing his mind, pretty much conspire to fuck up every possible long-term angle before any of the writers put the first word on paper. It doesn't matter if they're talented or not, Shakespeare couldn't consistently turn in great work under these circumstances. I tend to blame all of the WWE's creative problems on Vince, Steph and Trip. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Punk considered himself the champ. From Punk's perspective in the storyline, he was going to win the title from Cena and leave with the title. What did he think would happen if he left with the belt and did not defend it? Leaving the promotion equals vacating the title. It didn't make a damn but of sense. Except it did. Punk left the promotion with the championship. Promotion needs championship, so they scheduled a tourney. Makes perfect sense. It would of made less sense to go on TV and advertise that the WWE champion left with the belt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Unless Paul Heyman is employed by WWE at the time, in which case he gets a share too. Sorry, I laughed when I thought it and had to post it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 To give a true example of nonsensical booking from the laptop GM. The laptop says anyone who saves the legends from Nexus would be fired. There is no storyline way to explain why this ruling was made. Since they still have not revealed the Identity. Why there were no repercussions for making this decision. Somehow a laptop had full autonomy. The only thing it accomplished was making the Raw locker room look like cowards. That is nonsensical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Punk considered himself the champ. From Punk's perspective in the storyline, he was going to win the title from Cena and leave with the title. What did he think would happen if he left with the belt and did not defend it? Leaving the promotion equals vacating the title. Who said he wouldn't defend it? It sure sounded like Punk planned on taking the belt and defending it in a Bingo Hall or some such other place. On Sunday, had it been announced that the WWE Champ was schedule to defend on Raw the next night and if he didn't show up he would be vacating the title? It's the governing body / boss who steps in and says, "Hey... you're not the champ because you left. We're stripping you of it, and holding a tourney to create a new champ." It didn't make a damn bit of sense. Except it did. Punk left the promotion with the championship. Promotion needs championship, so they scheduled a tourney. Makes perfect sense. It would of made less sense to go on TV and advertise that the WWE champion left with the belt. So then why is Summer Slam Champion vs Champion for the Undisputed Title? You're basically saying that the title isn't disputed: Punk vacated it, Cena is the champ, Punk isn't the/a champ, and Cena will be defending against challenger Punk at SummerSlam. I'm not sure that too many people see it like that. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Again, I have no issue with the logic of running a tourney. My issue is that doing one that quickly doesn't really put over Punk's departure as a big deal. What if the next champ does the same thing? Oh well, no problem, they can always do another tournament. Life goes on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 On Sunday, had it been announced that the WWE Champ was schedule to defend on Raw the next night and if he didn't show up he would be vacating the title? Yes, or he loses the title via forfeit. Which realistically is how this should have ended. So then why is Summer Slam Champion vs Champion for the Undisputed Title? You're basically saying that the title isn't disputed: Punk vacated it, Cena is the champ, Punk isn't the/a champ, and Cena will be defending against challenger Punk at SummerSlam. If Vince was still in charge, I think that would be his position. But since HHH did not cancel the tourney and decided Punk still has a valid claim that the title is disputed. On TV HHH said that Rey had already won the belt when Punk showed at the arena. Though really the title should be vacant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 On Sunday, had it been announced that the WWE Champ was schedule to defend on Raw the next night and if he didn't show up he would be vacating the title? Yes, or he loses the title via forfeit. Which realistically is how this should have ended. I'm sorry... on MITB (or before) it was announced that whoever came out of MITB back as champ, that champ would defend the following night on Raw? And that if Punk won it, and he didn't show up, he would be vacating the title? I must have missed that. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 Thought you meant in a hypothetical scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 For what happened on Raw that night "to have made logic", there would have needed to be some advanced seeds. Instead, Vince (and Creative) pulled the tourney out of their asses. And Trip dumping Vince later in the show. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 The bigger point of the tourney is it was suppose to be a bad idea. That Vince jumped the gun on crowning a new champion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 Nobody on Earth, including his mom, calls him Phil Brooks.What do they call him, and why?Punk and variations thereof. I don't know know if there's any origin to it pre-wrestling other than the obvious. I was under the impression that's why Vince had the "I can call you Phil, right?" line in the negotiation segment: Not OMGZ SHOOT NAMES HAVE BEEN UTTERED as much as "nobody calls him that." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 Again, I have no issue with the logic of running a tourney. My issue is that doing one that quickly doesn't really put over Punk's departure as a big deal. What if the next champ does the same thing? Oh well, no problem, they can always do another tournament. Life goes on. That, and it raises a pretty big question. If someone walking out with the belt is just a momentary speed bump, why did Vince even bother screwing Bret? I know wrestling is no place for those with long memories, but Montreal isn't something you can just stick in the memory hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 There was a WCW back then. Acting like TNA or ROH are in the same universe is science fiction. Makes it more humiliating when guys leave now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smkelly Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 Maybe so, but not as damaging as it would have been if Bret had left in '97 with the WWF title. Bischoff, though insane with a lot of his decisions, would have tried to use Bret (maybe) as the title carrying WWF champion to destroy Vince. TNA and ROH are small anthills in comparison to WCW -- at least what WCW used to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.