C Dubya 04 Posted February 4, 2006 Report Posted February 4, 2006 Candice is alright when she's not talking...of course all women fall in that category. Edited for accuracy.
Si82 Posted February 4, 2006 Report Posted February 4, 2006 I personally think Edge, Benjamin, and RVD should all be involved in Money In The Bank II at WM. Why are so many people assuming that there will be a "Money in the Bank II" at Wrestlemania 22?
Black Lushus Posted February 4, 2006 Report Posted February 4, 2006 I personally think Edge, Benjamin, and RVD should all be involved in Money In The Bank II at WM. Why are so many people assuming that there will be a "Money in the Bank II" at Wrestlemania 22? I've been wondering that ever since these WM fantasy booking threads started...
Hawk 34 Posted February 4, 2006 Report Posted February 4, 2006 I personally think Edge, Benjamin, and RVD should all be involved in Money In The Bank II at WM. Why are so many people assuming that there will be a "Money in the Bank II" at Wrestlemania 22? I've been wondering that ever since these WM fantasy booking threads started... People are making that assumption because in theory, it's an idea that works because you can cram 6-8 mid-carders into a giant spotfest that people love, prevents having to set up a real story and gets more people on the card and because it worked for Edge and it gives them a go ahead storyline if they need one.
razazteca Posted February 4, 2006 Report Posted February 4, 2006 Cause its the King of the Ring concept squeezed into one match. Too bad there is the risk that the winner gets hurt and has to sit out for months before doing anything.
Hoff Posted February 4, 2006 Report Posted February 4, 2006 King of the Ring didn't result in a guaranteed title shot until 2002, the last year of the tournament. Some winners got one, but it was mainly a tournament simply for the rights to be called King of the Ring. It was also a tournament, which MITB isn't, and it was also elimination-style, which MITB isn't. Also, the winner never got to choose when they took their shot. But, other than that, it's really similar.
Guest GoJoe Posted February 4, 2006 Report Posted February 4, 2006 Hoff, your whole theory on MITB relies on a heel winning the title shot. If a face wins it, someone with honor, they won't want to take a cheap victory and would give the champion forewarning for a level playing field.
Downhome Posted February 4, 2006 Report Posted February 4, 2006 I don't see anything wrong with the MITB match being a new Wrestlemania tradition. Consider it something along the lines of the Royal Rumble. God knows that has just about always been very predictable, but everyone still enjoys the match for the most part. With MITB, there are a lot of ways they can go with the winner. It also provides the chance for someone who isn't a main eventer to win the match, then be built up over a period of time, and then for them to cash it in.
razazteca Posted February 4, 2006 Report Posted February 4, 2006 King of the Ring didn't result in a guaranteed title shot until 2002, the last year of the tournament. Some winners got one, but it was mainly a tournament simply for the rights to be called King of the Ring. It was also a tournament, which MITB isn't, and it was also elimination-style, which MITB isn't. Also, the winner never got to choose when they took their shot. But, other than that, it's really similar. Its the starting point for the mega super duber OMG push.
Black Lushus Posted February 5, 2006 Report Posted February 5, 2006 I'm not against the concept of MITB nor am I against it being a "WM Tradition", I just want to know what kind of kool-aid is being handed out that's causing everyone to think there will automatically be one. Has Meltzer or someone hinted that there will be one?
Hoff Posted February 5, 2006 Report Posted February 5, 2006 Hoff, your whole theory on MITB relies on a heel winning the title shot. If a face wins it, someone with honor, they won't want to take a cheap victory and would give the champion forewarning for a level playing field. That's been brought up before, and I've thought about it for awhile. I guess what it comes down to for me is that, if a face uses it in the "traditional" sense -- declaring his shot at a PPV months in advance -- there's no intrigue. It's not even that it's a bad idea, but now it's boring. I don't know, it may be a personal thing, but I don't like it. I could really only see it working if, say, it got down to a top face (with the MITB shot) vs. a top heel in the Rumble, and the heel won through nefarious means. The face then challenging for the shot @ WM would be interesting from a storyline standpoint, and offer the option to go to a triple threat. I still don't see an "honorable" face doing that. Might work on a young guy, someone in Maven's position at the end of 2004, but that's about it and that's awfully limited. I think my concern is also more to the fact that, sure, there's ways to retool it for this year, maybe even next, but it doesn't seem like it'd take long to get played out. That's what I loved about King of the Ring; the tournament itself was its own reward. You were supposedly KING of the squared circle. May not be WWE Champion, but there's only a handful of guys who've done it.
slimm44 Posted February 6, 2006 Report Posted February 6, 2006 RAW Tourney Brackets Sorry couldn't figure out how to post the image here. Interesting placement, looks like RVD might J-O-B
Hunter's Torn Quad Posted February 6, 2006 Report Posted February 6, 2006 On WOL, Meltzer thinks Hunter will be beating Flair, Shawn and RVD. He also called the tournament the Triple H Invitational.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now