WWE Backlash 2017

[Grimmas]

People wanted a brand split. I think that's worked out well.

 

However when people demanded a title for each show, this is what you get.

 

A touring World Champion is really the best way to go, it sucks they don't do it that way.

 

If we have to have two World Champions, I have no issues with Mahal winning. If there was only one World Champion though, he would not be even close to winning it.

[Matt D]

People wanted a brand split. I think that's worked out well.

 

However when people demanded a title for each show, this is what you get.

Not necessarily? Ambrose --> Styles --> Cena --> Wyatt --> Orton --> Mahal

 

This is not necessarily a logical progression.

[Grimmas]

 

People wanted a brand split. I think that's worked out well.

 

However when people demanded a title for each show, this is what you get.

Not necessarily? Ambrose --> Styles --> Cena --> Wyatt --> Orton --> Mahal

 

This is not necessarily a logical progression.

 

Basing this on history, not on logic.

 

The last brand split had great champions, but a LOT of folks who never would had won it in the past. When you have two champions you can take shots you can't take with one.

[Jimmy Redman]

Just because there's a brand split doesn't mean you necessarily have to put a brand's world title on a useless jobber.

 

It does happen, that doesn't mean it has to happen or it should happen.

[goc]

 

People wanted a brand split. I think that's worked out well.

 

However when people demanded a title for each show, this is what you get.

Not necessarily? Ambrose --> Styles --> Cena --> Wyatt --> Orton --> Mahal

 

This is not necessarily a logical progression.

 

The only person who really should have never touched the belt is Wyatt.

 

Just because there's a brand split doesn't mean you necessarily have to put a brand's world title on a useless jobber.

 

It does happen, that doesn't mean it has to happen or it should happen.

Another great argument against Wyatt.

[sek69]

Wyatt winning was just a means to get it on Orton, he was the 2017 Stan Stasiak.

[Matt D]

Also, there was about five minutes of foolish excitement for his win before people thought better of it with the Orton turn.

[stro]

Just because there's a brand split doesn't mean you necessarily have to put a brand's world title on a useless jobber.

 

It does happen, that doesn't mean it has to happen or it should happen.

He hasn't even had one show as champion yet, hard to say he's a useless jobber. It might end up being good TV and a good reign. Certainly not useless from an international standpoint, either.

[Cap]

Finally got to this show. I thought on the whole it overdelivered. There wasn't much I was excited about (Owens vs Styles was about it, and even that was better than I expected).

 

I am not going to go through it all. I liked Sami/Corbin for what it was. I think both men continued with their trajectories and continued to build who they are within the Smackdown roster. Sami is a good face to pair with Corbin and him getting the win was a nice surprise to me.

 

Styles/Owens was the match of the night, pretty easy. I thought it was really really good and even kind of liked the ending. They clearly aren't done so this was a solid first outing for the two. I suspect that Styles winds up with the belt, but I kind of hope they keep it on Owens and Styles returns to the main event scene.

 

As for the main event, my least favorite thing in the WWE is the hotshotting of the titles, period. I hate that they move the belt around so much with no real long term direction or goals. That said, within this pattern of behavior (which is very much the norm for the WWE), I'd much rather have them give Jinder a shot (based on how he has performed in the past month) than tread water with Orton. I hate the larger booking patterns, but that is what the WWE is going to do, so I am very much ok with Jinder winning the belt within that context. I mean if it is just to put the belt right back on Orton, its a waste of time, but if they really want to give him a shot to develop and run with the title for at least a couple months and see what happens, I'm down to give him a chance. I will say that he was very much exposed as a limited wrestler in the match. They have kind of been able to mask that in a number of ways during the build (though of course people had issues there too), but in this match he showed his limitations. he is inoffensive, but clearly not an excellent in ring performer. Regardless, I prefer this to Orton remaining a stale and directionless champion. This reinforces that anything can happen (and yes, sure, I would rather it be someone with some hype behind them) and it reinforces that hard work earns you opportunities (I stand by that Jinder worked hard to make his rise from jobber to contender work). I now give a shit about what is going on with that belt whereas if Orton had won I really wouldn't care at all.

 

I can't imagine Jinder making it past SummerSlam at the latest. With luck maybe Nak or Styles takes it off him there at the latest and carries to Mania.

[El Dragon]

hj

[DMJ]

I didn't mind the brand split at all when SD was booked well.

 

This show wasn't.

 

Nak/Ziggler was a very poorly layed out Ziggler showcase.

 

Remember when SD had Lynch defending the title on one part of the show and Nikki Bella in a grudge feud with Carmella elsewhere on the show? That was pretty cool how they could rotate the talent around and have two legitimate storylines going on. Last night we got the same multi-man nothing match we got at Mania. Also, Charlotte as a babyface, even short term, confuses me. Like, if you've got Kyrie Irving on your team, you should probably play him as a point guard, not a power forward.

 

I disagree that Mahal/Orton was better than either Wyatt/Orton match. The Wyatt/Orton matches were insulting, stupid, tasteless, and corny - but they were also somehow "must see." They were a shared burden all modern WWE fans had to submit to (like how liking the first Matrix movie meant you were obligated to sit through the atrocious sequels). Mahal/Orton was a C- match with an "out of nowhere," "shock for the sake of shock" finish.

 

I regret watching Mahal/Orton more than I regret watching either Wyatt/Orton match. I gained nothing from watching the match that I couldn't have gained by simply reading a spoiler. If you only read spoilers of the Wyatt/Orton matches, you missed out on a what were two of the most absurdly bizarre, poorly conceived, poorly executed matches in recent WWE history. There was something, however offensive, however terrible, however failing that made the Wyatt/Orton matches worth sitting through in their entirety. There's something to be said for being part of a collective groan.

 

Epically bad is better than just bad - or even just below average. Orton was maybe a *hair* more motivated (read: he didn't sit in any headlocks too long) and I will admit to liking the spot where one of the Singh Brothers did a flippy-doo on the table, but aside from that? Pretty pedestrian stuff leading to a shoulder-into-the-post spot and then pretty much the same finish that we got when Mahal won the contendership against Zayn (Singhs interfere, Mahal hits unimpressive finisher).

 

Now, I try to keep my match reviews devoid of complaints about overall direction - meaning, I don't think this was a bad match just because I don't think Jinder deserves to be a champion and I think its ridiculous that in a company with this much talent, Jinder is the one getting the push (to me, that's like arguing Hardcore Holly deserved a title run in 2004), but...c'mon.

 

You want to take the title off of Orton and put it on someone fresh? Bring Braun over or hotshot it to Corbin. You want to put it on someone who draws heat? The Miz didn't need to be traded last month. Isn't Rusev on SD now too? You want to do something shocking and crowd-pleasing instead of crowd-infuriating? Big E's sitting around. I don't see how Jinder Mahal is a better option than any of those others - and I haven't even mentioned "indie faves" Zayn and Owens. (Personally, I think AJ Styles should be at the top of the card because he's the best act on the brand, but that argument is too easy to make.)

[Ricky Jackson]

None of those other guys are Indian

[goc]

If they bring Charlotte in immediately as a heel and she feuds with Naomi, she wins the title and feuds with Becky and then...? What exactly do you do once those 2 feuds are done? Smackdown has 3 women on the active roster who are good, Carmella who is a good character but not very good in the ring, and two people who are pretty much useless in Tamina and Natalya.

 

I have absolutely no issue with the way they've booked the Smackdown women's division since the Shakeup because they are working around the limitations. When it comes to singles feuds there is only really enough talent in the Smackdown women's division right now to do one good feud at a time. This at least holds off the inevitable dominant Charlotte heel run until they can hopefully get someone up from NXT to bolster the division or get closer to the next roster shuffling.

[DMJ]

Charlotte as a heel gives you the aforementioned Charlotte/Naomi and Charlotte/Lynch feuds. Charlotte as a face give us what?

 

I totally agree that the division could use some help via an NXT call-up or two, but I don't necessarily agree that there is a benefit to "holding off" on Charlotte being a heel right now. The Charlotte/Sasha feud ran for like 6 months it seemed - I don't see it as so problematic that you could have Charlotte/Naomi/Lynch in different pairings for the next 3-4 months, especially if you throw in Natalya on occasion or Carmella into multi-mans and I think Nikki Bella will be back around August maybe?

 

So, putting my booking hat on, Charlotte comes in as a heel, goes right after Naomi. Meanwhile, Lynch plays the Sting to Charlotte's Luger in the way that while Charlotte is acting quasi-heelish, Lynch stands up for her as a friend as she challenges Naomi. Charlotte wins the title semi-cleanly - Naomi rolls her ankle or something and Charlotte gets the Figure 8. Lynch confronts her on SD, but Charlotte says in the moment, she just wanted to win. She says she will give Naomi her rematch and they even hug it out, Lynch essentially brokering a peace treaty. Then, at the next big show or whatever, Charlotte out-and-out cheats to retain the title and maybe kayfabe injures Naomi with an underhanded tactic. Lynch finally sees Charlotte for who she is. As this is going on, you have Becky Lynch involved in a feud with Carmella and Ellsworth and maybe even pair her up with someone for a mixed tag (I'm thinking the "Fiery Becky Lynch" with fiery mystery partner Kane doing a one-off appearance just to chokeslam Ellsworth for a crowd-pleasing pop).

[spaldoni]

Big time shout out to that Chicago crowd. Man they were great! They proved how much a crowd can bring up a show. I liked Backlash and thought it was entertaining. A.J. Styles never disappoints and I'm ok with him and Owens going at it for the US title. A feud like this just elevates that title. I think Owens is doing a great job in bringing importance to the title. I haven't watched any Nak matches, I only know the hype. I just haven't gotten into him. In my opinion Ziggler looked better in the ring. I'm good with Jinder winning the world title and I have to admit I'm really liking his character. He reminds me of an old school heel and he is really working hard at developing his character. I hope he gets a good title reign because I want to see what he can do. Like somebody mentioned, there are a lot of baby faces he can work with and there's also the inevitable big match with Cena down the road. Thumbs up to Smackdown as they continue to put on great shows and build up stars.

[Loss]

Just because there's a brand split doesn't mean you necessarily have to put a brand's world title on a useless jobber.

 

It does happen, that doesn't mean it has to happen or it should happen.

 

Agreed. Not to mention that it's hard for me to think of a time that making someone a champion got someone over who wasn't already over. Wrestling works much better when the title needs the wrestler than when the wrestler needs the title.

[Coffey]

Wrestling works much better when the title needs the wrestler than when the wrestler needs the title.

 

That's a helluva quote right there.

[stro]

I disagree completely. The title makes the wrestler. If a lower ranked guy can win the top title, he should be treated as a top talent. If the wrestler makes the title, then the title is inherently meaningless.

[Loss]

I must have missed when Jack Swagger, The Miz, Alberto Del Rio, Dolph Ziggler, Sheamus, Daniel Bryan (pre-2013) and CM Punk (pre-2011) became career top guys because they won the title. In contrast, Steve Austin won the title for the first time after he got over as a top guy and people wanted him to be at that level, as did Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, The Rock, Shawn Michaels, Mick Foley and a host of other people. You tell me which works better. When someone who fans don't perceive as being at the top level wins the title, it doesn't suddenly make that wrestler seem at the top level. It makes the championship mean less. It should be the culmination of a journey to the top, not the beginning of it.

[joeg]

 

Wrestling works much better when the title needs the wrestler than when the wrestler needs the title.

 

That's a helluva quote right there.

 

 

Quote of the year.

[stro]

I must have missed when Jack Swagger, The Miz, Alberto Del Rio, Dolph Ziggler, Sheamus, Daniel Bryan (pre-2013) and CM Punk (pre-2011) became career top guys because they won the title. In contrast, Steve Austin won the title for the first time after he got over as a top guy and people wanted him to be at that level, as did Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, The Rock, Shawn Michaels, Mick Foley and a host of other people. You tell me which works better. When someone who fans don't perceive as being at the top level wins the title, it doesn't suddenly make that wrestler seem at the top level. It makes the championship mean less. It should be the culmination of a journey to the top, not the beginning of it.

 

If the wrestler makes the title, then you might as well not have a title. The reality is that it's a mixture of both, but to me the title meaning you're legit should be how it works as opposed to you're legit and then make the title mean something. You can't make jobbers win the title on a regular basis, but in a perfect world it would make their career if you spend years making the title important regardless of who is holding it.

 

I've never liked the idea that the title is important because important people have it, because it makes the possibilities of who can even sniff the title very low, which is why you have no surprise Rumble winners for the past 15 years. The title has to be important on its own regardless of who holds it, but obviously the person holding it can make it more important. I don't think it should be the wrestler inherently giving the title value.

[Loss]

The wrestler doesn't inherently give it value, but the wrestler can certainly take it away. I've just never seen taking someone who was struggling and making them a world champion work in establishing them as a main event fixture. I can't think of a single time.

[stro]

I didn't say there have been examples, but I believe it SHOULD be that way. If I were booking a promotion, I'd work my hardest to make the title more important than the individual wrestlers holding it, so the title can make someone if need be.

[Matt D]

Part of the problem is that if WWE books someone beneath the title into that role, they then book them as undeserving as champion so it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. The exception was probably JBL.

[Loss]

I didn't say there have been examples, but I believe it SHOULD be that way. If I were booking a promotion, I'd work my hardest to make the title more important than the individual wrestlers holding it, so the title can make someone if need be.

 

If that's your take, then we are saying the same thing, but just differ on how to get there. I think the way you build a title and make it matter is to put in on the people who matter the most. I do think the challenger role is absolutely a place for experimentation, but I think step one to a successful championship run is creating the fan demand for the moment, either as a matter of love or hate.

 

But yes, the title will be there after the wrestlers are gone, so it should be more important. But as we saw in 2009, whatever title the top stars go far (at that time, the tag titles) will be the top title in the company, regardless of anything else.