Guest Just call me Dan Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 Sure he took the belt from another paper champion in Big Show, but Kurt's reign almost just seems like a foil to Brock's continuing mega push. Brock needs another big name to go over and look good, so they take the most over of the Smackdown Six and groom him to look strong for a Brock babyface title win. It is almost guaranteed that Brock is going over. So, is Angle once again the transitional champ? If you ask me, I think he was given the belt for the sole purpose of jobbing to Brock and making his run a big one. That spells transition to me.
Guest The Mighty Damaramu Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 Well every Champion is a transitional champion. But I know what you are saying. And you seem to be right. He does seem to only have it to keep it shiny for Brock. No big plans for Angle as champ.
Guest Just call me Dan Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 Well you know when HHH gets the title, its not in transition. Michaels got the belt just for the hell of saying he was champ, with no real plans for a big meaningful run. I mean transitional as in beat a couple opponents on PPV to look strong, but your run means nothing because it is only a piece of someone else's bigger plan.
Guest Austin3164life Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 I don't know, for some funny feeling, the way they are building up Brock, I have a feeling Angle could possibly (however unlikely) win at Wrestlemania. It just is so obvious Brock is going to beat Angle that it got me thinking, what if Vince/Stephanie were to pull a huge swerve and keep Angle with the belt? Aw, who am I kidding, Brock will beat Kurt after a 18-20 minute match, and Michael Cole will call it one of the greatest matches ever.
Guest Just call me Dan Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 I just don't even see the point of NOT having Brock go over. If they are going to bury everyone for the sake of him looking so dmaned good, he better get the duke so it all paid off. I think this one is just in the books and is going to be a gret match, but it will restore the babyface pulls it out tradition WM always used to have.
Guest JMA Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 I think Angle vs. Lesnar should be played as the two most successful superstars in the shortest time going against each other. They both won the World title in their first year, they are both amateur wrestlers, NCAA champions, ect al. The similarities should be played up as much as possible. I think before the PPV Lesnar should have his leg injured by Team Angle. Then, at the PPV, Angle should work on the injured leg the entire match, eventually causing Lesnar to tap to the Ankle Lock. But the fans would not go home with JUST a heel champion as Booker T would destroy Triple H and take his title.
Guest Mole Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 Yeah he is a transitional champion, but I don't see anything wrong with it. The match with him and Brock is going to be built up big time for WM, and their match will pay off. Well, that is what I think. Jericho was a 'transitional' champ, and he held it for 5 months. So, take it for what it is worth.
Guest JMA Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 Jericho was a 'transitional' champ, and he held it for 5 months. So, take it for what it is worth. He also curtain jerked in a match against Tazz and wrestled Maven. Not to mention cleaning up dogsh*t.
JN News Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 I think we're gonna have to Lesnar beat Angle at Wrestlemania, because there is absolutely NO WAY that Triple H will ever job the World Title at Wrestlemania, especially not to Booker T.
Guest JMA Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 I think we're gonna have to Lesnar beat Angle at Wrestlemania, because there is absolutely NO WAY that Triple H will ever job the World Title at Wrestlemania, especially not to Booker T. Who WILL Triple H job to (besides members of the Kliq, Austin, or an old has-been like Hogan)?
Guest NoSelfWorth Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 HGH will job and put people over. It's just a happy coincidence that they just happen to be people who are of zero possible threat to his position. And as for Angle v Lesner at WMX9, I would have Angle win when a bloody Brock passes out from being in the ankle lock or heel hook. It puts Brock over for being tough, and Angle over for making Brock pass out. It means Angle can be built up with more defences, avoiding Brock until the final blowoff at SummerSlam.
Guest Mad Dog Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 All nonHHH heels in the WWF are transitional champs. It's been that way since Buddy Rodgers had the title back in the beginning. The heel takes it off the face to either freshen things up or to move it on to the next big thing.
Guest NoSelfWorth Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 Except for Superstar Billy Graham and Yokozuna.
Guest Mad Dog Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 Ehhh both are a bit ify. Yoko did have a long reign but he benefitted from the WWF not knowing who they wanted to put the belt on. Graham was rather popular for a heel in the 70s.
Guest Vitamin X Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 Actually I think it's the other way around. Heels get built up as dominant champs, like noone can stop them, or they have friends in the right places to help them get what they want, or just plain out cheta up until a plucky young babyface comes along and defies all odds to win the title. But think about it, when was the last time a face had a nice long dominating run as champion? ...AND DREW?
Guest Mad Dog Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 Well who's had a good long run with a title period. As far as heels as champs the WWF has never really practiced that policy. WCW was very famous for the face chasing the heel. If you look through WWF Title history most faces would hold the belt for a few years then lose it to a heel and the heel would typically fall to the new big face within a few weeks. Superstar Billy Graham was the first heel to break the trend but no other heel really ever held onto the title for more than a few months till Yoko had it for close to a year.
Guest NoSelfWorth Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 Yokozuna kept it so long as they wanted to do the classic chase with Lex Luger. Trouble was, Lex never got over a lick.
Guest Mad Dog Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 Wasn't the original plan for Luger to win it at WMX then lose to Ludvig Borga later on?
Guest THE MIGHTY THOR Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 If you are not HGH or kissing up to the bookers or Vince or banging the owner's daughter and you are a heel that makes you a transitional champion and a weak one on top of that, made out to look like a big punk and unable to defeat the big babyface monster.
Guest The Hamburglar Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 Sorry, beating Chris Benoit, the second most over face on Samckdown, clean twice in a month does not equal a placeholder transitional champion. Kurt's storylines still occupy the main events, Jericho's didn't. And besides, Angle's first run wasn't transitional either. It was tons of fun, with Angle playing the cowardly heel role perfectly and using it to become a more serious character when he lost the belt. Angle winning the six-man HiaC was sheer genius. That title run was everything Jericho's wasn't.
Guest THE MIGHTY THOR Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 B/C he is a WWE homegrown talent, but that title reign has been forgotten already and it was nothing compared HHH's God push.
Guest The Hamburglar Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 B/C he is a WWE homegrown talent, but that title reign has been forgotten already and it was nothing compared HHH's God push. Angle's first year push was indeed very comparable to HHH's push. Angle had a two-three month winning streak, became Euro-continental champion, won King of the Ring, got involved in the centre-piece love triangle storyline and won the championship belt within the space of his very first year. Are you trying to say that's not a God Push?
Guest Vitamin X Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 well at least LATELY the face has always chased the heel...I don't know about the 80's, but pretty much for as long as I've been watching wrestling the heel has usualyl been a dominant champ..or one who always seems to be with the title... Look at Yokozuna, Corporate Rocky, HHH as God, Austin's heel run, and now you have Angle and HHH (again)
Guest THE MIGHTY THOR Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 I'm talking about the world title reign not Angle's past accomplishments, his title reign was so weak but not as weak as Y2J's. HHH got the biggest push in the world by going over the whole WWF roster in 99 and he couldn't get over till Austin had to leave to get a neck surgery and have Cactus job for him in 2000.
Guest Vitamin X Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 I think what really got HHH over was that he was the first post-Attitude era champion, and thus since Vince was moving away from the every month title switch, and was conveniently pushing HHH, booyah. Say what you will about him, but HHH before the quad tear in May 2001 WAS THAT DAMN GOOD. Everyone here seems to have forgot that when they talk about him...
Guest NoSelfWorth Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 I think what really got HHH over was that he was the first post-Attitude era champion, and thus since Vince was moving away from the every month title switch, and was conveniently pushing HHH, booyah. Say what you will about him, but HHH before the quad tear in May 2001 WAS THAT DAMN GOOD. Everyone here seems to have forgot that when they talk about him... Back in 2000-2001, HGH was pretty good, but not as good as he or his marks think. What made HGH a star was Foley putting him over clean, 3 PPV's in a row, twice in his own environment. To think otherwise is foolish.
Guest AlwaysPissedOff Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 Actually, Attitude didn't end around when HHH became champion. IMO, Attitude ended at WM 17 when Austin turned heel and went with McMahon.
Guest JMTapes Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 Wasn't the original plan for Luger to win it at WMX then lose to Ludvig Borga later on? I thought Borga was supposed to win it shortly after the Rumble, then job it to Luger at Wrestlemania X. Could be mistaken, though. www.jmtapes.com
Guest Stunt Granny Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 Angle is not a transitional champion. A transitional champion's sole reason for getting the title is to lose it to someone else. It was a popular move in the 60's and 70's so because promotors didn't want to damage a face's popularity by by winning the strap from another face. Like Ivan Koloff was a transitional Champion between Sammartino and Perdro Morales. Or the Iron Sheik between Hogan and Backlund. More recent ones would be Mick Foley at SS '99 or the Big Show just last November. The only reason they got the title was to protect a potential match-up or beacuse the reigning Champon doesn't want to do the job. Angle is not a transitional champion becuase his title reign is being built up toward the Main Event at Wrestlemania. Angle was NEVER a transitional champion because he won it and lost it to the same people. That term is thrown around way too liberally.
Guest Rob Edwards Posted February 19, 2003 Report Posted February 19, 2003 I think what really got HHH over was that he was the first post-Attitude era champion, and thus since Vince was moving away from the every month title switch, and was conveniently pushing HHH, booyah. Say what you will about him, but HHH before the quad tear in May 2001 WAS THAT DAMN GOOD. Everyone here seems to have forgot that when they talk about him... Back in 2000-2001, HGH was pretty good, but not as good as he or his marks think. What made HGH a star was Foley putting him over clean, 3 PPV's in a row, twice in his own environment. To think otherwise is foolish. For all the HGH hate I spew these days I'll admit he was awesome in 2000/01 , sure so Foley made him a star but he was constantly putting on good to great matches throughout the year against a variety of opponents and was never out of the main events in what was WWE's best year in recent memory (2000)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now