C.S. Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Going to request again that the Titus controversy get split off into its own thread. It's worthy of that at this point, especially when it has dominated most of this one. There you go. Thanks, much appreciated! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Yes. Because if this was a story about an NBA player grabbing Adam Silver like that at some event and getting suspended over it the story would be "what the fuck was he thinking grabbing the commissioner like that?" instead of talking about how it's some injustice borne out of racism. How is that an apples to apples comparison? It would be more like an NBA star grabbing his coach just like that and getting suspended. Also does the NBA commissioner have a history like Vince? Really horrible comparison. History like Vince means WHAT? He wrestled Kurt Angle on a plane one time and committed the terrible sin of pushing people in pools? Well as far as I know he never pushed Titus in a pool. Nothing you are trying to reference makes him fair game to be aggressively grabbed for no reason. Especially when it's on camera. Vince waving poopy pants in guys faces? The fact he wrestled and bladed? The fact it is said horse play is encouraged? Also Vince pushed him back just as or more aggressively. Should Vince be suspended too for being unprofessional? Also, way to ignore the fact your comparison was horrible. It's not a horrible comparison imo. I also didn't see you acknowledge how hyperbolic your statement of "something that everybody else does" is when you only have 1 example to go with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Yes. Because if this was a story about an NBA player grabbing Adam Silver like that at some event and getting suspended over it the story would be "what the fuck was he thinking grabbing the commissioner like that?" instead of talking about how it's some injustice borne out of racism. How is that an apples to apples comparison? It would be more like an NBA star grabbing his coach just like that and getting suspended. Also does the NBA commissioner have a history like Vince? Really horrible comparison. History like Vince means WHAT? He wrestled Kurt Angle on a plane one time and committed the terrible sin of pushing people in pools? Well as far as I know he never pushed Titus in a pool. Nothing you are trying to reference makes him fair game to be aggressively grabbed for no reason. Especially when it's on camera. Vince waving poopy pants in guys faces? The fact he wrestled and bladed? The fact it is said horse play is encouraged? Also Vince pushed him back just as or more aggressively. Should Vince be suspended too for being unprofessional? Also, way to ignore the fact your comparison was horrible. It's not a horrible comparison imo. I also didn't see you acknowledge how hyperbolic your statement of "something that everybody else does" is when you only have 1 example to go with it. I'm not backstage, so I don't have examples of horseplay backstage. Vince did flip off the referee a few weeks ago, very unprofessional, fire him now. How is Vince anything like the Commissioner of the NBA? Does the commissioner of the NBA hang out in the locker room of NBA players every game? Does he sometimes play in NBA games with them? Does the NBA Commissioner wave underwear in players faces that have feces on them or push them into pools when they are fully dressed? Did the NBA Commissioner cut himself on live TV in order to make the games better? How is this at all the same? How does this deserve a suspension? Is it just because Vince is the boss and he was touched or was it because it wasn't scripted? Was it because he wans't a big star? What makes this suspension worthy and what The Rock did a few weeks ago not or Vince flipping off the referee behind his back not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 How is Vince suddenly not an untouchable boss just because he's bladed before? He's the head of the company. If he doesn't want you to touch him, then you don't touch him. It's not somehow different just because he's the boss of a wrestling company. And why are you even talking about Vince flipping off the referee? That's PART OF THE SHOW. Titus randomly grabbing Vince wasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jushin muta liger Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 How is Vince suddenly not an untouchable boss just because he's bladed before? He's the head of the company. If he doesn't want you to touch him, then you don't touch him. It's not somehow different just because he's the boss of a wrestling company. And why are you even talking about Vince flipping off the referee? That's PART OF THE SHOW. Titus randomly grabbing Vince wasn't. So Vince giving the finger to the fans when he was referee part of the show too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death From Above Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 This is doubly odd to me because of Titus' role of being one of their lead guys for away-from-WWE promos especially with kids. Despite him not having much of a push they seem to work pretty hard to keep him a meaningful company man. I have no real other feedback on this other than it being very strange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 How is Vince suddenly not an untouchable boss just because he's bladed before? He's the head of the company. If he doesn't want you to touch him, then you don't touch him. It's not somehow different just because he's the boss of a wrestling company. And why are you even talking about Vince flipping off the referee? That's PART OF THE SHOW. Titus randomly grabbing Vince wasn't. It's different because it's a completely different environment. Let's be clear that he didn't punch him in the face or trip him or anything like that. He held him back. If a football player did that to his coach would that be a 90 day suspension? Are you serious? Again, Vince flipping off the fans is not part of the show and not scripted, it was Vince being UNPROFESSIONAL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 a NFL player could easily get suspended 1-2 games or something for that kind of thing, v. authoritarian culture there i do think there's something to the notion that the WWE culture has changed since even the mid-2000s, but this is pretty silly yea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcmmnx Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 This sounds like something that's been building for a while with Vince being rubbed the wrong way by the millennials. No more fun and games sports entertainment is serious business god damnit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 Whether or not WWE's actions were racially motivated (and I really do not believe they were at all), I still understand why it came up. The black employee of a white billionaire playfully grabbed his boss to remind him to be chivalrous to his daughter. That one interaction is informed by race, gender and class. Just because I don't personally think this is a case of racism doesn't mean it's not worth discussing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 Why did Titus even need to teach Vince chivalry? If anything it could be interpreted as showing Vince up. It is akin to George Costanza telling a woman "bless you" when her date didn't. He got shown up and the girl broke up with him in favor of George. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricR Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 How is Vince suddenly not an untouchable boss just because he's bladed before? He's the head of the company. If he doesn't want you to touch him, then you don't touch him. It's not somehow different just because he's the boss of a wrestling company. And why are you even talking about Vince flipping off the referee? That's PART OF THE SHOW. Titus randomly grabbing Vince wasn't. It's different because it's a completely different environment. Let's be clear that he didn't punch him in the face or trip him or anything like that. He held him back. If a football player did that to his coach would that be a 90 day suspension? Are you serious? Again, Vince flipping off the fans is not part of the show and not scripted, it was Vince being UNPROFESSIONAL! Vince can be as unprofessional as he wants. Him being unprofessional does not set a precedent for his employees to do whatever they want. That's why it's good to be the fucking king. I had a boss who literally punched his 20-something son in the face (who also worked there) while at work. If I punched his son I would have expected to get fired. But nobody called him out on it because it was his son, his company, his dysfunctional family. Vince can flip off whomever he wants and turn right around and fire somebody for doing the same thing. Call it unfair, but nobody should call it unexpected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lust Hogan Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 Does Batista have beef with WWE? Why would he publicly tell fans that he told Titus to quit? Just curious..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 Does Batista have beef with WWE? Why would he publicly tell fans that he told Titus to quit? Just curious..... Yeah he has beef. He thinks that the WWE didn't treat him right in his last run. Supposedly he was promised certain things that never materialized, he didn't like how he was booked to stand in the ring letting Stephanie slap his face and glasses, and he was quickly reduced to henchman by the end of it. If Batista was happy with them, he wouldn't have left again so quickly and he wouldn't have turned down an offer to do something at Mania this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 He was going to get the title at Mania 30 until the Bryan thing took over. Not sure how much beef he necessarily as over it as he was more than a good sport in putting Bryan over and coming back for the Shield matches, but he's also at a point in his career now where he absolutely does not need WWE and doesn't have to bite his tongue. They want to be associated with him more than he does them. That changes the dynamic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 Creative was part of the issue, although I think on its own, Batista would have been fine with that. But they weren't leveling with guys about payoffs at the time with the Network being new and they were also continuously adding dates to his schedule that were not what he initially agreed to do. I think on a personal level it also bugged him that he was treated as a scapegoat by fans when he was really just a victim of circumstance. He strikes me as one of the real life good guys who felt like WWE was taking him for a ride, rightfully so in some ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 Batista vs Brock was talked about as a big match that never happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 He was pretty angry at the end when he wanted some things he was promised addressed and WWE responded by leaking that he refused to do a job for Daniel Bryan. He was quick to say he would have happily put Bryan over ten times in a row but the relationship with WWE had soured, which was the real issue. I don't think any of it was bad enough that bridges were burned though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 Batista has also been publicly vocal about the PG era and how much he dislikes it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 Yeah I don't think Batista actually had a problem with Daniel Bryan (or even the fans really). He has gone on record saying he should have never come in as a babyface. He thinks the WWE failed to protect him by putting him in awful positions all that time. He went from being a guy who expected to have a main event run and ended up almost being the third guy in Evolution and putting over the Shield every month. So all that combined with broken promises and his not really needing wrestling anymore he just left. To be fair to him, he was one of the biggest stars in the mid 2000s and then he was treated worse than just about any returning stars that came in. Part of it is bad timing with the Bryan stuff happening but they definitely had room to book Batista better than they actually did, so his frustrations had real merit to it for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fakeplastictrees Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 This would be an entirely different thread all together, but what could WWE have done to salvage Batista's last run? Bring him in as a heel and then what? Eventually his paths would have to cross with guys like The Shield, Bryan, etc. as he was being paid too much money to be fucking around with guys like R-Truth on a consistent basis. Re: Race, Gender, Class I see this being more of a class issue then anything else as I am sure Vince got to the back and cut a 'spilt liquor' promo on Titus. If Rock, Cena, or Batista did the same thing it wouldn't have received the same response. Titus doesn't have 'fuck you' money yet, because the only people Vince respects are those who don't need WWE at all. Vince apologized to CM Punk very quickly and said he would like to do business again only days after Cabana's podcast. Titus grabs a wrist and its a 60 day suspension with Vince and company ready to fire him. This was a political move, not about horseplay and getting serious, but adding to the overall narrative of YOU need WWE, WWE doesn't need you. Vince continues to work to keep that prophecy alive and well in 2016 with little bullshit stunts like this. The Bellas saw how hard it was without WWE the first go around, they thought they would leave and Hollywood would call-- that of course did not happen and they returned and now they have everything they wanted but couldn't get outside of wrestling. I am sure in some halls of WWE that is shown as a 'See! This is what WWE can do for you!' type of moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 Well if they had booked him as the heel coming in, there would be no damage to "salvage". The fans would have an easier time treating Batista like a star who would be welcomed back if he was the heel. Remember that promo he cut in February about the fans needing to support "real stars" instead of a midget like Daniel Bryan? That is exactly the first thing Batista should have been doing when he came back. Instead he was brought in wasting time with Del Rio before getting his Rumble victory rejected by the fans. Once the WWE admitted that Daniel Bryan deserved more, and Batista wasn't the guy the fans wanted, that pretty much killed his value. I know he would have had to cross paths with the top guys but they booked it so that he had ZERO meaningful victories after he won the Rumble. That is not protecting Batista. He was completely sacrificed for the others. Brock didn't even do that. Brock only faced the top guys and winning more often than not. Batista must have seen that and it was obvious that he wasn't thrilled by any of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 With Batista it was just the worst possible timing for him. Any other time, bringing Batista back as the returning superstar face would have worked, at least for an initial run. But as 2014 dawned we were six months into Bryan being pushed/not pushed as our guy, and a big OVW creation coming back from Hollywood to take his spot was like the worst possible thing to do at that moment. It was a slap in the face to fans, to not only ignore their wishes and try to slot Bryan back in the midcard where he belonged, but also in not paying off the story that they'd been telling on TV since June. Batista was pretty over for his return, and it was only when everyone realised he was taking Bryan's spot that the backlash began. I think eventually backlash would have been inevitable anyway, since crowds these days prefer to cheer "their guys" instead of guys they see as being handpicked. But it would have taken a lot longer without Bryan, and they could have used the goodwill he had for a decent face run before he had to turn heel. Instead of the mess that we got. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 Batista embodied what the fans think the company wants to push at the top. He absolutely would have worked if he started off his run with the "I am a real star" heel character he settled in after being forced to turn heel. Then "backlash" would just be functional heel heat instead. He was not so beloved that needed to get the "babyface pop" out of the way before turning. So there was no reason to re-debut him as a babyface and that's something even he himself has admitted. On a different note, Batista also absolutely hated that he was booked to be slapped around by Stephanie. You'd never see them try to do that to Brock or Rock. The whole Batista run was almost a passive aggressive message to him for leaving the first time rather than treating him like a superstar coming home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fakeplastictrees Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 Why didn't they just give Batista the Lesnar treatment? Batista could have worked with Sheamus, Barrett, Rusev, Big Show and ADR and would have received no backlash and essentially would have been a face if WWE REALLY wanted to go that route. Toss in some televised Network Specials against The Miz and Kofi Kingston and Batista would have been A-Okay! Undefeated, kicking ass, getting the babyface reaction the company wanted and it wouldn't have pissed Batista off as much. 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.