I'm Not Feeling Survivor Series

[Promoter 0]

I don't like having transition champions for the sake of transitional champions. Sometimes patience is needed. They did not do this with guys like Bret Hart and HBK back in the day and it hurt them. An example would be Yokozuna. He didn't do that much more business than Bret as champion, but they were hoping Lex Luger would become the next Hogan and it certainly didn't happen. Bret Hart was still the future champion regardless. They just needed to be more patient with the guy in the champion role. The same with HBK in 1996. They switched the title to Sid and business didn't get any bigger with him carrying the strap. HBK was still the top guy arguably. However, if they had patience and worked with HBK's character and tuned it like the DX days he would have done alright. The title had to go back to HBK anyways since he was the future champion.

 

Cena wasn't given the title because they wanted him to get over. He was over first. The same with Bret and HBK. They had a following before the belts were put on them. It's how they were treated as champion and programmed was the problem. They don't become the same characters because Vince likes to make them corporate friendly. The Rock and Austin are the only two guys who broke this tradition and the wwe probably let them do it because at the time they were going for broke anyways because wcw had them down for the count. As Vince said in a RAW mag, back then he was more kamikaze because he had nothing else to lose with wcw killing them in ratings. Now they have gone back to being conservative again. As for Orton, he did not really get a following as Cena did. He started to get cheers for going toe to toe with Foley and within 2-3 months they put the belt on the guy with no build.

[Guest JMA]

One, just because you put a title on a guy like Michaels doesn't mean you're building your entire company around him. There's nothing wrong with having a transitional champion until somebody who really deserves having a company built around them emerges.

 

Second, the whole "this is our star of the future, let's put the title on him and build our company around him, touting him as being The Man for the next generation" thing doesn't work. Cena is bombing. Orton bombed. Lesnar was moderately successful, but he bolted.

 

You shouldn't be putting titles on people to get them over. You put titles on people who already ARE over. You don't get guys over by making them champion. If anything, you put them in a deeper hole because people shit on those wrestlers, knowing full well they don't deserve a belt. Nobody catches on with fans because they are champion. They become champion because they've already caught on with fans.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This seems to be a major problem with WWE. Back in the day you could watch as a superstar gradually got over and eventually became a top tier player. Now we have guys being pushing far too soon before they have a chance to develop. The fans have little, if any, emotional connection to the newer wrestlers.

[Promoter 0]

If you take into account how fans are now these days it would seem that in 1995 at Mania HBK would have been the champion and rightfully so. He was the most over in terms of babyface heat. Sometimes back then they did not hit while the iron was hot and it hurt them. The same with Bret Hart's first reign that was cut too short. I agree there is that lack of seeing stars rise to the top, but that's hollywood and sports entertainment writing. When you consider someone like Austin took 8 years to get a title compared to Cena(or worse Lesnar within months) it is troubling. That's what happens when you got Vince basically running the industry in a monopoly.

[Open the Muggy Gate 0]

 

I never thought I'd ever say it... but I think the Boogeyman is awesome. There I said it...

[Dark Age 0]

For those whining about Lashley being eliminated first, take a look in the mirror. Your hard-on for muscle-bound, juiced up guys is a reason for why wrestlers continue to take roids and HgH.

 

Personally, I'd like to believe that guys with inflated physiques are going to be made to look less than superior from now on, especially with the drug policy being instituted.

 

Otherwise, Eddie's death will be in vain.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you serious? The roids stuff has nothing to do with this. What people are bitching about is how they get behind a guy, like Lashley, have a chance to get him over and what do they do? Job him out. Great. I don't particularly like Lashley, and I fully support the whole ability over physique stuff, but what you're saying is just silly.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Whats the story with that?

 

He lied about his age. He said he was 30 when he was really 40 and this was after he told the guys he works with kids and tells them not to lie, but he did it himself and was promptly put down and cut. And of course, rehired many months later.

[Guest Ransome]

If Eddie had lived, how would WWE have ended this pay-per-view?

 

I imagine Orton/Undertaker would have been a match earlier in the card (with Undertaker making his return one or two weeks earlier), but would Smackdown still have won the five on five match? Surely it would have panned out a lot different if Eddie was still in the match (rather than Orton), since I don't think they'd have rehashed Survivor Series 2003 otherwise.