CM Punk doghouse?

[Wrestling Century]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="UkWrestleFan" data-cite="UkWrestleFan" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="24739" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Yep, and I disagree with his comments about ECW being treat like a joke. <p> </p><p> Wrestling Century, do you meant it's treat like a joke when compated to the original ECW? Some clarification would be great because personally I think that ECW is doing a good job.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think that ECW is the best WWE brand right now. I was just saying that WWE treats it like a joke. They hardly ever put ECW matches on PPV. Also, I guess it was pretty drastic to say that I wanted the brand split to end. I just wish that WWE would do it better.</p>

[djthefunkchris]

I think that ECW is the best WWE brand right now. I was just saying that WWE treats it like a joke. They hardly ever put ECW matches on PPV. Also, I guess it was pretty drastic to say that I wanted the brand split to end. I just wish that WWE would do it better.

 

/nod. I can get behind this whole post 100%.

[Tha Black Phenom]

I respectfully disagree with your opinion on the brand split.

 

Yeah, that's a boat past sailing. I think I wanted the split to end, but in like.. 2005. Now is way too far to go back, I guess. At least when they announced the re-branding of ECW in 06, I was like "bummer, no f'ing hope now". Haha.

 

Back to Punk though, should the story be indeed fake, I'm hoping Taker and Punk continue their program(even though I'm sorely against the fact Cena/Orton in HIAC wasn't a feud ender) instead of... Batista -shudders-

[Wrestling Century]

Yeah, that's a boat past sailing. I think I wanted the split to end, but in like.. 2005. Now is way too far to go back, I guess. At least when they announced the re-branding of ECW in 06, I was like "bummer, no f'ing hope now". Haha.

 

Back to Punk though, should the story be indeed fake, I'm hoping Taker and Punk continue their program(even though I'm sorely against the fact Cena/Orton in HIAC wasn't a feud ender) instead of... Batista -shudders-

 

Hey, at least the John Cena and Randy Orton fued will end at Bragging Rights, in an Iron Man match. Does anybody think this will be good? I'm hoping that it will be good, but after they destroyed the HIAC match, they might destroy the Iron Man match !

[Moe Hunter]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="24739" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>There is no "dress code" in WWE and workers are not told to dress a certain way.</div></blockquote><p> When did that end? Because there certainly used to be one. Everyone was to wear slacks and a dress shirt when "on duty".</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="24739" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>CM Punk has his fair share of detractors backstage which could have gotten the rumors started. WWE management is still high up on CM Punk.</div></blockquote><p> OR, the idiot dirt sheet writers who have been running "Punk in the doghouse" stories since he first came to WWE, are just keeping up their usual BS.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="24739" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>From what I've been told, there have been plans to get the World Heavyweight Championship back on Undertaker since his return, and the decision was finalized on Sunday. Source - PWmania</div></blockquote><p> Anyone who couldn't see Undertaker winning at HiaC from a pure booking standpoint needs their head checked. Punk could have saved Vince's grandkids from a burning building and they would still move the title to Taker.</p>

[Astil]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Moe Hunter" data-cite="Moe Hunter" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="24739" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> Anyone who couldn't see Undertaker winning at HiaC from a pure booking standpoint needs their head checked. Punk could have saved Vince's grandkids from a burning building and they would still move the title to Taker.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> True but only so he could be drafted to ECW to team with Hurricane as the Super Punks! Indy darlings by day. Super heros by night!</p>

[foolinc]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Wrestling Century" data-cite="Wrestling Century" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="24739" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I think that ECW is the best WWE brand right now. I was just saying that WWE treats it like a joke. They hardly ever put ECW matches on PPV. Also, I guess it was pretty drastic to say that I wanted the brand split to end. I just wish that WWE would do it better.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I disagree. WWE treats ECW exactly how it should be treated. If WWE put on more ECW match on PPV then the quality of the product on the TV shows would go down. The charm of ECW is that almost everything important happens on ECW. And if it wasn't then I'm guess less people would watch the product and the young prospects that WWE puts on that show wouldn't get as much exposure as they should.</p>

[Tha Black Phenom]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Moe Hunter" data-cite="Moe Hunter" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="24739" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>When did that end? Because there certainly used to be one. Everyone was to wear slacks and a dress shirt when "on duty".<p> </p><p> </p><p> Anyone who couldn't see Undertaker winning at HiaC from a pure booking standpoint needs their head checked. Punk could have saved Vince's grandkids from a burning building and they would still move the title to Taker.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> probably ended around the transition to pg image? to cander that much more to the kids and whatnot.. i know using pg as reason for many of today's changes in the WWE isn't wise, but who knows. /shrug</p><p> </p><p> as for the latter, i don't think a punk win was out of the question, it's just a matter of whether they'd want to take a huge step with him or not. way i see it, if nobody can beat Taker at mania, they could at least get the claim of destroying him in a HIAC... see what i mean?</p><p> </p><p> but then again.. there's the timing. taker came back not long ago, so maybe a two/three week absence would do fine)</p>

[James Casey]

Certainly in the Make A Wish video on Raw the other night, most of the workers were in casual/gimmick-relevant clothing. There's probably a dress code of a sort - you have to look appropriate on company business, so no-one goes around dressed like Brooklyn Brawler, but even so, it does seem the old dress code has fallen by the wayside.

 

I had this discussion about titles over on EWB, and I'd note that it's not so much that any individual title has changed hands significantly more than would have been the case ten years ago, to pick an obvious example. Go look at the average title reign length for Austin, Hart and most importantly of all Rock - three months, four months and six weeks if memory serves.

 

However, there are now two World titles which are changing hands almost monthly. Cena had his lengthy reign a couple of years back, and since then the belts have been bouncing around a lot. Even allowing for Edge and Batista's injuries, there's a lot of nonsensical switches in there (specifically, Batista winning the belt when it was clear he was injured. Also Batista winning the belt from Jericho and losing it back a week later) and some short-term reigns that just seem to be there to stasck the figures.

 

Something that doesn't help for me is the WWE habit of lumping the titles together. "Orton is a six-time World champion..." No, he's not. He's held the WWE title and the World title. They're separate belts, and should be treated as such.

 

The top titles in a company really shouldn't change hands more than two or three times a year. The odd quick switch can make waves (cf. Edge's first win) but that should be an isolated incident. Switching titles for the sake of switching them (Orton-Cena-Orton, Orton-Batista-Orton, Punk-Hardy-Punk) annoys the hell out of me.

 

As the brands are all on the same PPVs nowadays, I'd like to see a 'soft' rule that the World and WWE belts can't be on the line at the same show, for a start - both belts switched hands on Sunday, and that dilutes the importance of both switches, never mind that they were the umpteenth switch of the year for both. Obviously at the bigger PPVs you want all stops pulled out, but it just really gets out of hand at times.

[Slim Jim]

This could be a completely nonsensical point but I'm going to make it anyway... could the hotshoting of the titles be because of the shift to the PG audience? Kids have such a short attention span that it wouldn't surprise me at all if the 'E were trying to avoid them becoming bored with the champions, and rather than trying to book an interesting long reign, they are taking the easy route by having the belt change hands every couple of months or less.

 

Also, with Cena's year+ reign and JBL's reign, there were quite a few people complaining about the length of time they had the belt and it could be that rather than fixing that problem by making the long reigns more interesting, they have just started doing short reigns.

 

And of course there is the resume building title wins, which I am sure Batista's last couple have been. They just want to be able to bill him as a five-time world champion or whatever it is he's at now, and again it goes over big with his younger fans when he wins the belt but I think they have realised he isn't reliable enough to run with the belt for any great length of time.

[foolinc]

This could be a completely nonsensical point but I'm going to make it anyway... could the hotshoting of the titles be because of the shift to the PG audience? Kids have such a short attention span that it wouldn't surprise me at all if the 'E were trying to avoid them becoming bored with the champions, and rather than trying to book an interesting long reign, they are taking the easy route by having the belt change hands every couple of months or less.

 

Also, with Cena's year+ reign and JBL's reign, there were quite a few people complaining about the length of time they had the belt and it could be that rather than fixing that problem by making the long reigns more interesting, they have just started doing short reigns.

 

And of course there is the resume building title wins, which I am sure Batista's last couple have been. They just want to be able to bill him as a five-time world champion or whatever it is he's at now, and again it goes over big with his younger fans when he wins the belt but I think they have realised he isn't reliable enough to run with the belt for any great length of time.

 

This might be the case as the hot shotting of titles happened during the Attitude Era as well. The more and more I watch the Attitude Era shows, the more I hate them.

[Tha Black Phenom]

I'll be frank, I was one who pulled for short reigns during Cena's year long reign, but obviously I meant in moderation... never like this. For a while I didn't mind, such as Batista's 8-day reign, because.. well that allowed for unpredictability. Jericho got a second World title under his belt, everyone was happy(although that reign itself was short). There has to be a limit somehow, not sure this is about the kids because say.. the same way they have a short attention span, you could easily say at one point if this becomes a long-term thing, they might forget some champions down the line? I'm already starting to forget a few reigns myself, it's crazy. It almost slipped my mind Edge was a World champion after Mania 25.

 

Something that doesn't help for me is the WWE habit of lumping the titles together. "Orton is a six-time World champion..." No, he's not. He's held the WWE title and the World title. They're separate belts, and should be treated as such.

 

Indeed, but in that case I guess they couldn't claim Triple H's illustrious 13-time World title wins. I guess since the split, they decided to roll with that as well. Bah.

[Slim Jim]

They might forget about them while the focus is off that person but when they need them again, WWE can now hype Edge as a nine-time world champion, and have those nine wins for his highlight reel, making him look far more impressive than he should do. And that isn't a knock on Edge, I'm a fan of the guy, but come on... nine world titles? In three years? He isn't THAT good.

[PoisonedSuperman]

Ric Flair's record wouldn't count either then, well maybe it would but it would be less then 20 whatever times.

 

I love the short reigns, I don't mind if the title changes hands every month, I don't see the big deal. Everyone says it makes the title less prestigous but just calling in the world title makes it known that is the most prestigous title in the company. Since the WWE is the only big dog around, no one is going to dispute that some other companies champion is more prestigious.

[Tha Black Phenom]

Ric Flair's record wouldn't count either then, well maybe it would but it would be less then 20 whatever times.

 

I love the short reigns, I don't mind if the title changes hands every month, I don't see the big deal. Everyone says it makes the title less prestigous but just calling in the world title makes it known that is the most prestigous title in the company. Since the WWE is the only big dog around, no one is going to dispute that some other companies champion is more prestigious.

 

True, but I think a company can lower their titles' prestige by themselves. There hasn't always gotta be another one to compare to at the other end of it - say, not sure if back in the Monday Night Wars there were so many comparisons around the WWF and WCW World titles. Maybe a little, but..

 

And yeah, well.. it hugely depends on how far they take this, because if they do, at which point Cena and Orton become nine-time World champions, maybe it won't look so special..? I originally even billed Edge to rival Triple H and Flair's title reigns, but if everyone's getting quick counts on their spreadsheets well... who knows where that'll lead.

 

foolinc was right about this happening with titles in the Attitude Era as well, but luckily that was a short wave. I expect (and hope) for it to be the same now.

[Franchise22]

if you counted all world title reigns id say jerry lawler has them all beat by a ton....

[James Casey]

I don't mind them referring to them as World champions so much - that wasn't clear.

 

It's stuff like Orton calling himself a six-time WWE champion when he's not - if the wrestlers can't get the names of the titles right, why should we care about them?

[Self]

As I understand it, when they used to switch titles, the following RAW would get a boost in the ratings. I don't think that works any more, but it probably adds to the pile of reasons.

 

That and they keep changing their mind about stuff.

 

Also, with Cena's year+ reign and JBL's reign, there were quite a few people complaining about the length of time they had the belt and it could be that rather than fixing that problem by making the long reigns more interesting, they have just started doing short reigns.

 

Well let's be fair, JBL and Cena aren't the most popular guys for Internet Fans (where I expect most of the complaints came from). If they'd given long reigns to Edge or Jericho or Mysterio or Guerrero or some other dude lots of folks really liked and I bet the tune would change.

 

I like 6 months as a title reign length. Cut it shorter if things don't work out. Make it longer if things are going great.

[lazorbeak]

The "title prestige" argument gets brought up a lot on EWB and my .02 has always been that a title is only as prestigious as the man (or woman) holding it and those chasing it. When Rock and Mankind traded wins, nobody said "oh, that title isn't worth **** any more." It was compelling television because both men were competing at such a high level that one of them might get an advantage any given night.

 

After Wrestlemania 2000, Benoit and Jericho traded the Intercontinental title for months, with neither getting a reign nearly as long as Kofi Kingston's last run with the gold. When did the title seem to have more "prestige?"

 

I like 6 months as a title reign length. Cut it shorter if things don't work out. Make it longer if things are going great.

 

Six months? That is a LOOOOONG TIME when you've got at least six pay per views to fill.

 

I've made it known elsewhere how I dislike the idea of booking six months in advance: in the real world, and, to a lesser extent, in Adam's games, six months gives you a lot of times for things to go wrong. Matches should be built from month to month, and title reigns are there to serve the story, not the other way around.

 

For instance, smarks single out Batista's one day reign, but it was important in making Batista look strong: he had been on the shelf for months following Orton's punt, and if Orton wins their big re-match, injuring Batista in the process, it makes Batista look like he isn't even in Orton's league. So WWE has to accelerate their timetable to put the gold back on Orton.

[Hyde Hill]

I agree Lazor with the fact that it is not so much about what they are doing short/long reigns but how and to a lesser extent why they are doing it. The flawed execution in the how part makes it irritating atm.