eayragt

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Nathers7" data-cite="Nathers7" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>From the spoilers it says that Christian was just as over as Orton was and Christian was way more over than Orton at Extreme Rules so that kills the theory that this was good for busiiness. There's casual fans all over WWE's Facebook page calling this one of the worst booking decisions ever. </div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Even though I disagree with the title switch, I don't agree with this. I just don't believe Christian is more over than Orton. And I didn't know "casual fans" read spoilers.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Fantabulous" data-cite="Fantabulous" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Orton is going to be the guy Smackdown is built around so it makes sense he gets the World title. Will Christian be harmed by dropping the belt so quickly? In the short-term, yes, because he comes off as guy who can't cut it as World champion. Depending on what they have planned for Christian, the damage might only be short-term; if the idea is to make him the top heel on Smackdown to feud with Orton, then he can be rebuilt to where the short title reign doesn't hurt him so much because it adds to his character and can be a logical part of why he turns heel. However, if Christian getting the belt was strictly to transition it to Orton, and Christian is put back in the midcard and used to get over the heels they <em>do</em> have plans for, then the short title run just puts the rubber stamp on Christian as someone they flat out do not see as a top level guy.<p> </p><p> The reason for the short title run will become clear quickly, but if I'm playing the odds, I'd say it was just to get the belt to Orton.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Of course that's the reason for it. But it didn't need to happen this week. Do they need Orton as champ before Over the Limit to sell the PPV? No. I'm not going to argue with Orton getting the belt then (I would have prefered one PPV title defense vs a heel first), but it didn't need to be switched now.</p>

Putting the title on Orton makes business sense - Orton sells, PPVs, Christian doesn't. But... JOHN CENA IS CHAMPION ON RAW!!! They don't need Christian selling PPVs, because Cena will be doing that fine on his own! The Miz and Christian being title holders at the same time wouldn't make business sense, but that hasn't happened. There is no reason this shoudn't have waited until Over the Limit,

As there are people saying that the World Heavyweight Title is a done deal, I'll stick my neck out and disagree, to be mocked tomorrow: Triple Threat Cage Match for the WWE Title John Cena vs. John Morrison vs. The Miz Ladder Match for the World Heavyweight Title Christian vs. Alberto Del Rio Last Man Standing Match Randy Orton vs. CM Punk Falls Count Anywhere Match Rey Mysterio vs. Cody Rhodes No DQ, No Count-out, Loser Leaves WWE Match Layla vs. Michelle McCool Country Whipping Match Jim Ross & Jerry Lawler vs. Michael Cole & Jack Swagger The crossbrand matches add some intrigue, as it would be easy for a new feud to start by someone costing Orton or Mysterio the match. Could easily see Punk winning if he's not as near leaving as rumoured if Henry / Clay / A.N.Other Smackdown heel interferes. If Orton does lose then my Mysterio / Rhodes pick swaps around... but I can only do one prediction, so that's it. If any of the other titles ends up being defended I'll go for it being retained.

Personally I think the other way. Before the trade I saw Christian winnign the title before dropping it Del Rio, now I see Del Rio winning it to swerve us all, then for him to drop it to Orton next PPV.

Nope. It's a draft. Just like conscription, which was known as a draft. There are plenty of types of draft. Anyway, my views on the draft: Cena to Smackdown / RAW I see why they did this - you make the draft the focus of teh show, you need big names moving. Solution? Don't make the show just about the draft. Stupid. Rey Mysterio to RAW First thought was it'll be nice to see fresh matchups with Del Rio and Punk . Seriously, a feud with R-Truth is just about the only match up for him that I could get interested in Randy Orton to Smackdown Top move. It's been over 18 months since he's feuded with Cena, but it's the money feud in WWE. Seperating them for a year before they feud inevitably again is good. Mark Henry to Smackdown Turns a non-entity into an upper midcarder for a few months. Hopefully no longer, but it's good use of... "talent" Sin Cara to Smackdown Happy with that - remember when Smackdown was the "talent" show when the brand split originally happened, and it made for some great matches. There's still decent talent on Smackdown, and decent matchups. Still wish Rey was still on Smackdown... Big Show to RAW Is it bad that I actually want to see a proper, decent Big Show / Miz feud? About time he moved, he was running out of opponents on Smackdown. Del Rio to RAW WWE put their faith in Del Rio and give him the opportunity to become the next big heel... possibly taking Punk's roll. That's fine. And then the supplementary draft... seriously? That many? Lets have a quick look: Daniel Bryan to Smackdown - great Regal to Smackdown - great - I'm liking this talented Smackdown Beth Phoenix to RAW - good, need her against Kong Riley to Smackdown - pity, I think sticking with The Miz for a while would have been better for him Swagger and Sheamus swapping - probably good moves for the two of them Everyone else - at least six of these people will be cut before the end of the year. And will Drew will either have a good push, or be jerking the curtain? Time will tell. Overall... I liked it. I actually like the look of Smackdown... as soon as they remember Henry's not a Main Eventer. And if Punk does sign a new deal then RAW's not looking too bad. They could have done a lot worse. They could have also done a lot better if they hadn't messed around with Cena.

Two guys who went off for a successful sojourn to TNA before coming back to WWE in matches for the titles at Extreme Rules? Perhaps Vince has learnt to turn the page. Or perhaps it's just more fortunate that there was a retiree and someone in the dog house to open up the spot.

Meow. The fact he hasn't wrestled a WWE match is irrelevant - WWE includes WCW and ECW now, and he wrestled for both. Regardless, the WWE Hall of Fame has recognised wrestling outside the E/F for several years. The fact he's "bloodthirsty"? I say tough - hardcore wrestling is a different beast, but it's still considered wrestling and Abdullah is a legend of it. And the fact that the WWE Hall of Fame is "disgustingly embarassing"? Given that he was inducted along side Pete Rose how long did he take to work that out.

I think I'd better point out that Christian got an equally big pop as Booker T did when making his return, just for balance. But as for who is more over? Depends on your definition (whether or not you're more over if more people know you, or how popular you are in the group of people who know you). I don't think there's a hard and fast definition out there, so both sides can argue they're right and agree to disagree.

He also mentioned he was please with the way things turned out. How quickly one forgets Victory Road...

Really? I made sure I typed "I'm assuming" and "maybe it's like this". I don't know either way, but I was describing a scenario that I thought was plausible, which might explain why they wouldn't sack Hardy. Not that I think that would be a good enough reason not to sack him (or pay off his contract / sit him out for the rest of his contract), but I'm not running the business and it's eaasy for me to sit outside making the decisions. Perhaps he has a straight PPA contract, and TNA never have to pay him a penny ever again (apart from merchandise money which will certainly dwindle). His contract may be explicit that his behaviour was gross misconduct. Those are all equally plausible - but I was offering an alternative that as I saw hadn't been discussed and I had no reason to rule out. Apologies if it came over that I thought I was right, and I see how my last sentence could have been read that way, but it's not how it was meant. My assumption when that came out was that TNA had really strict punishments, but a really lax testing regime, and TNA would always point to the punishments if questioned. Thing is, if that's right then Hardy could be in trouble, although it really depends if they ever actually tested him or not. Without a test it's more debatable, although I think in a disciplinary you could come to the conclusion that on the balance of probabilities that there was substance abuse. Again, depends on whether the policy specifically mentions failed tests / being caught with drugs or just being under the influence.

That would work fine, but given that Hardy's one of there biggest names I'd assume that his contract is loaded with guarantees so TNA would either have to pay him off of pay him to do nothing. Although this would be the correct move the temptation will be for them to try and get a return on their money. And do I reckon that it was written into his contract that if he was high or wired on duty he'd be fired? No idea. Perhaps if due to drugs / alcohol he was unable to perform? Perhaps. Not neccessarily - and Hardy would argue all day that given the opportunity to perform he could have done (and he can probably produce matches that he has performed under the influence). Do I reckon it's more likely that it's written that if he takes drugs on duty at TNA he'll get a suspension? Sure. It doesn't look like we're talking crack or anything like that (which a sacking would be much easier) - it looks like the usual mix or stims / pain killers / alcohol that wrestlers have been taking for decades (although not in the same level or with such poor timing). Maybe the contract does cover abuse of them as a sackbable offence - but equally, it may just mention fines and suspensions and nothing more. Now, if that's the case the T&C's will be being rewritten pretty quickly (hopefully), but it could potentially make Hardy less sackable while sitting on a nice guaranteed contract. Perhaps I'm wrong and he has no guarantees, perhaps guarantees are invalidated during any legal processes, I don't know. If anyone has a copy of Hardy's contract and TNA's drug policy, it'll enlighten me more.

I was thinkig about this and... TNA might not be able to sack him. If I turned up to work high, I could be sacked, easy. I think my contract covers drugs, but if not there's the all encompassing gross misconduct. However, TNA probably has some drug rules, even if they're lax at enforcing them. Rules and punishments. Whatever Jeff took could well be under those rules. And the punishment for doing those drugs? Not being sacked, that's for sure. Now, you could argue the gross misconduct issue again, but if there are specific drug rules and punishments, it could become a grey issue. The last thing they want is to get involved in a legal argument, where Jeff can say what he's been getting up to backstage with RVD with the full knowledge of some senior management at TNA without being punished (that's pure speculation, of course). At the end of the day you'd probably have to pay him off in some way, and I'm sure Jeff's got a very nice contract that doens't make it attractive. At the end of the day, perhaps TNA think a month off and then bring him back as a hated loner is the best option. Some may consider that irresponsible by TNA, but if they've already been irresponsible, sometimes it's hard to stop.

Ouch. I know it ended up a BS Main Event, but once Hardy and Sting were out there, they did the best they could. Bisch' did well (even if perhaps he was going to make it no DQ anyway), there really just wasn't the time to get anyone involved. I fully believe whatever Hardy did he did moments before he came out. So, can anyone answer the question why would you want to keep Hardy around? Name value? Na-ah. To job to someone? Er, risky. Fire him publically on Impact. Storyline wise of course. Then carry out internal disciplinary. Where you fire him.

Team up two of them to take on Beer Money or MCMG every so often to break it up?

Hopefully WWE will have 'H and 'Taker face (and defeat) Sheamus and Barrett in the build up to 'Mania. I'm all for Sheamus defeating Danielson (sorry) at 'Mania to give him the go of a solid mid-title run. As for Barrett - not really sure where he goes from here. Damned, moving him to Smackdown really did stall his momentum, didn't it? Still, maybe equally he could get a midcard title reign on Smackdown by taking on Kofi. Nothing wrong with a midcard title reign.

Yeah, but not only would no-one care but it would be a heel / heel match. At WrestleMania. You can get away with face / face when you put two Main Eventers against one another some of the time - try heel / heel with two midcard teams... not even WWE are that stupid, are they?

And regarding the Tag Team titles, there's just no way it's going to just be Corre vs Nexus. No-one would care. You've got to throw in at least Santino and Koslov. Although I wasn convinced that 'Taker vs 'H wasn't going to happen, so what do I know?

Just incase anyone in the UK hadn't realised (like me until now), Elimination Chamber is on regular Sky Sports. In normally is each year, but I'd forgotten until I realised that Sky weren't advertisign it on Box Office.

It would be an opportunity to swap Ziggler with someone in the RAW Chamber match, which would be Sheamus, Killings or Morrison. Morrison's route to the gold would be shorter on Smackdown...

Actually, that's not what I said. I said there were many things that you could do with her, many of which would be disasters. Thing is, there are many things you can do with Steve Austin that could be disasters. Sure, there's stuff that Austin can do that she can't, but there's a lot she can do that Austin can't / couldn't (as I'm talking past tense Austin... WCW Austin). And short shelf life? Not a problem. Not everything about TNA has to be about long term. Bringing back Steiner isn't long term, but it's a good short term move. TNA don't have the money of WWE to keep throwing stuff until the wall until something sticks, but that doesn't mean they can't try. And when you have someone unique and almost certainly cheap, there's very little to lose (unless you carry on trying to make it stick when it's clear it wont).

I'm not quite sure what the need for all the bitcheness is in this (and the WWE) thread. People have differing opinions, and as most of these opinions are about whether someone is "liked" or "useful" there are very few incorrect opinions (unlike the incorrect opinions if, say, someone said that Kurt Angle isn't a good technical wrestler, or the Rock doesn't cut promo's that interest the crowd). A 7 foot woman who can't wrestle and isn't that athletic? There's plenty you can do with her. Many of them would be disasters, but surely not all of them. The Women's division is in need of a Special Attraction in my opinion - that's one of the issues with having a small division, there's only so much you can do with what you've got, but the addition of one "special" person can open many more lines. She doesn't even have to wrestle, just bully. Or she could just be a valet... for the Amazing Red maybe. Wrestlecrap? Maybe - but some Wrestlecrap is enjoyable if done well. I choose Red as he's one of those people who can only go so far, so aligning her with him isn't going to stunt his growth. Then there's also the obvious. The wrestling industry has history with the large, untalented bodyguard. A very low percentage of the time they make it on their own after breaking out (Batista). Some hold their own. Some disapear after their story ends never to appear again. But as long as she doesn't wrestle for 10 minutes every other week, what's the problem? This isn't RoH, this is TNA, and they also do Sports Entertainment. Could she be involved in an entertaining storyline? Sure. Will she be around in two years time? Chances are - no. Is it worth giving her a chance? Why not? Are there more people worthy of the opportunity? Sure, but when's the world ever been fair?

Holy... I know he's 38 but that's a baby compared to Batista. Hell, even if he just stays until WrestleMania next year and just wrestles at PPV's, hell yeah. God, what a pop that was.

I don't buy it. Streak vs career matches two years running? Someone's career on the line who hasn't wrestled for ages? Sounds like someone's plucked a thought from the air and ran with it as a story.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="lazorbeak" data-cite="lazorbeak" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>But there hasn't been an Orton behavior story in over 4 years, far, <em>far</em> before he became the #2 babyface in the company. And I don't believe anybody in the business has said Orton is the next Austin ever, let alone way back in 2004 when he was being accused of harassing diva search contestants. </div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Um, Orton was always considered the next big thing (well, the second big thing after Cena) - you don't debut, get injured and then still get to appear on vignettes if you're just anybody. The pushed into a stable with Triple H and Ric Flair - this man was being pushed! Next Austin? That's always going to be a bit hit or miss, but it is something that WWE wanted, and Orton they thought fit the bill. What other next big things have they let go? Mr Kennedy? That's not quite the same. Was Orton given more leeway than Kennedy? Probably. C'est la vie. Hell, there are numerous wrestlers on teh WWE roster who would not have been... let's say suspended (as WWE couldn't risk temporarily firing some of them) for strangling Josh Matthews with his tie. One did. It's not always what you do but who your are. Happens in all walks of life.</p><p> </p><p> And then, years later, they discover he's a bit of a rubbish face - hugely over, but never going to be the next Austin. Never going to break out commercially beyond WWE. Still, he's currenty their Number 2 draw (arguments could be made if Undertaker, Shawn Michaels or Triple H were active - but they're not).</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Blackman" data-cite="Blackman" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Watched the Rumble last night, and without spoiling it, I think they made a big mistake letting this man win. Seriously, a midcarder? I'm not watching WWE much these days, so I could be missing him.<p> </p><p> and that link of CZW is frickin' AWESOME</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> We've moaned about a stale Main Event for ages, and WWE have been pushing him hard. And he really has an all round package (apart from finisher). Personally I think it's a positive - Punk, Orton, Cena and Trips wouldn't really have gained from a win, and they were the other names being banded about for a win (well, and Morrison who would, but having <em>just </em>had a title shot the effect wouldn't have been quite the same).</p>