The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

[Hyde Hill]

They care just as much as normal, they are just positioning Miz as a weak champion atm. Due to the fact he won via MITB after Orton was attacked pre match and was injured during match against Barrett that he won.

[Woodsmeister]

Whats going on with the WWE Championship? Why do I watch a recorded RAW for the first time in 6 months and see a Miz vs The King WWE Championship match in which I honestly thought the King was going to win? Im not even sure if what I was watching was true.

 

A bunch of guys hurt or doesnt the WWE care about their belt prestige again?

 

The fact they had you believing The King could win is justice to the match and to the performers in there. On paper if you could bet on wrestling im sure the odds and betting would be very in favour in The Miz winning so the fact they had you doubting it is testiment to the match. And although King did not do much he did enough to make it entertaining.

[Basmat01]

that match reminds me of the WWE Undisputed Championship Ladder match between Undertaker and Jeff Hardy and the WWE title match between HHH and Maven when Chris Benoit and that were doing everything in there power to help Maven win. but they were so close but yet so far lol

 

And I dont see how it was making the Miz look like a weak champion its only been a week lol

[LoNdOn]

that match reminds me of the WWE Undisputed Championship Ladder match between Undertaker and Jeff Hardy and the WWE title match between HHH and Maven when Chris Benoit and that were doing everything in there power to help Maven win. but they were so close but yet so far lol

 

And I dont see how it was making the Miz look like a weak champion its only been a week lol

 

I certainly don't think it did the Miz any favours. It took three men to stop King from winning that match. A clean win over a current roster member would have been far more beneficial in my opinion.

[juggaloninjalee]

I liked Miz vs King in a TLC match. Wish MVP didnt get released. I like him.

[crownsy]

I certainly don't think it did the Miz any favours. It took three men to stop King from winning that match. A clean win over a current roster member would have been far more beneficial in my opinion.

 

Thats not the point of his gimmick though. Not every champion needs to be booked to win clean and strong, especially not a smaller, cowardly heel.

 

Also miz said in an ESPN interview that he is going to be pushed as the cowardly heel champion who is vulnerable every week.

 

It's actually kind of a good move, he's good enough on the mic to make the crowd and home audience loath him every week and tune in to see if someone can beat him and get frustrated when he cheats to hold onto the title.

 

I know we all love to bash WWE creative, and most of the time it's deserved, but this actually isn't a bad gimmick and draw, it's why its been done with good talkers who are undersized since the beginning of time. Ric Flair very early in his career comes to mind.

 

Note: not comparing Miz and Flair in any way except that this was pretty much young flairs gimmick

 

1. show up and piss the crowd off at the event

2. go up against a much more physically imposing/ over guy

3. be "the dirtiest player in the game" and retain by hook or by crook

4. Profit

[Tha Black Phenom]

I certainly don't think it did the Miz any favours. It took three men to stop King from winning that match. A clean win over a current roster member would have been far more beneficial in my opinion.

 

Beneficial in what way? Maybe they don't feel like building his credibility that way. Maybe they're just going for that weak opportunistic champion route like with most heels. In which case... there's no problem. In vintage fashion, he walked away with the belt in cheap fashion after a suspenseful match.

[Basmat01]

I certainly don't think it did the Miz any favours. It took three men to stop King from winning that match. A clean win over a current roster member would have been far more beneficial in my opinion.

 

It might of been WWEs way of saying thanks to Jerry Lawler. It might of been the best match his had in years lol

[Hashasheen]

It might of been WWEs way of saying thanks to Jerry Lawler. It might of been the best match his had in years lol

 

Despite that, there were a few obvious spots during the match. A suplex that was telegraphed ahead of time with Lawler tapping the Miz, Miz nudging Lawler to turn on his stomach for when he went for the chair shots, etc...

 

Still, I see Lawler as a guy who really did deserve a World Championship run of his own back in his prime.

[alden]

It was the guy's birthday. They gave the old man one last moment in the main event. O and they kept saying "he never had a world title match". That is actuly not true. When heart won his first title jerry had a few title matches against him. I believe the same with disel when he was champion the first time. I am pretty sure that he had several title shots just not in the last 13 years.

[LoNdOn]

Beneficial in what way? Maybe they don't feel like building his credibility that way. Maybe they're just going for that weak opportunistic champion route like with most heels. In which case... there's no problem. In vintage fashion, he walked away with the belt in cheap fashion after a suspenseful match.

 

I'm just saying that I would much rather have seen him get a win over someone who was relevant. That's just my personal preferance.

 

I feel that a win over someone like a John Morrison would have given him some credability and legitimise him in a way. Now while I accept that there are other ways to have him retain his title, I would have liked to see them cement him as a main eventer by having him start his reign with a bang.

 

Had he had to defend against a current roster member and then used underhanded tactics to get the win, that would have been fine. Being put in a match against Jerry Lalwer and being made to look weak I don't think helped.

 

Look cowardly against the tough guys, not the 50+ year old commentators.

[PeterHilton]

It was the guy's birthday. They gave the old man one last moment in the main event. O and they kept saying "he never had a world title match". That is actuly not true. When heart won his first title jerry had a few title matches against him. I believe the same with disel when he was champion the first time. I am pretty sure that he had several title shots just not in the last 13 years.

 

Let's not forget he also held the AWA world title and competed against Ric Flair a couple times during that period.

[SaySo]

Isn't Miz doing what LeBron James is accused of doing when he joined the Heat by taking the easy way out - "Needing A-Ri and Cole to win the match" last Monday and "Nexus beating down Orton" before cashing in his MITB?

[Johnny Fenoli]

Does anyone, or has anyone, have a subscription to WWEClassics.com?

 

I was thinking about signing up, but wanted a couple of reviews first....

[juggaloninjalee]

Isn't Miz doing what LeBron James is accused of doing when he joined the Heat by taking the easy way out - "Needing A-Ri and Cole to win the match" last Monday and "Nexus beating down Orton" before cashing in his MITB?

 

No because A-Ri is his Verajau while Michael Cole is his old Larry Hughes. They came to the Miz. Miz didn't go to them. Plus Miz hasn't destroyed the pride of his home state... OHIO (hate that state)

[Bigpapa42]

Does anyone, or has anyone, have a subscription to WWEClassics.com?

 

I was thinking about signing up, but wanted a couple of reviews first....

 

I've had it for about six months and I must say that its well worth the $10 per month. The content is typically okay to good rather than amazing, but almost all of it is watchable. I particularly enjoy the old school WWF shows, the territorial TV episodes, and the Monday Night Wars (full episodes of Raw & Nitro FTW).

 

I find value in it personally because I will watch almost all of it, which is probably a couple dozen hours of stuff per month. That easily makes it worth the $10 per month. But if you are fairly selectective on what you want to watch or some of the stuff they feature doesn't really appeal to you, the value might not be there as much.

[Stennick]

I think people are too used to the Sheamus, Randy Orton, Triple H heel world champions where they are dominant in the ring and out.

 

You guys that are complaining about Miz looking bad against Lawler aren't thinking from the right point of view.

 

You guys are saying Lawler is a sixty year old man The Miz shouldn't have nearly lost to a sixty year old man.

 

From a FANS perspective its classic story telling. Hell didn't they do this with Bret last year in Minnesota? The Old Gun Slinger coming back for a shot at one last championship before he leaves. Did it make the other QB's look silly when 40 year old Bret was out playing them? Of course not because its sports and sometimes in sports we rise up above what we're capable of in order to win a championship.

 

The WWE hyped up Lawler's legendary career, they had the backstage stuff with him, the fans already like him on commentary, he's been around forever and I bet he's been on more RAW's than anybody else.

 

They didn't see it as Miz getting kicked around by an old man, they saw it as Miz screwing a fan favorite out of his life long dream.

 

What about Ric Flair? Did anybody complain that he nearly beat Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania? Ric was nearly in his sixities at that time.

 

Anyway I like The Miz because its a different champion. How long has it been since we had a by hook or by crook champion? I'm sick of the dominant, champions.

 

On a side note Alex Riley is getting really good on the mic pretty quick. He's clearly comfortable in his role.

[lazorbeak]

Anyway I like The Miz because its a different champion. How long has it been since we had a by hook or by crook champion? I'm sick of the dominant, champions.

 

On a side note Alex Riley is getting really good on the mic pretty quick. He's clearly comfortable in his role.

 

It was on a different brand, but Edge was always built up to be better at head-games and exploiting situations than he was in the ring. His whole feud with the Undertaker was basically him dodging Taker, sacrificing his friends and his wife if it got him out of his comeuppance.

[PeterHilton]

I think people are too used to the Sheamus, Randy Orton, Triple H heel world champions where they are dominant in the ring and out.

 

You guys that are complaining about Miz looking bad against Lawler aren't thinking from the right point of view.

 

You guys are saying Lawler is a sixty year old man The Miz shouldn't have nearly lost to a sixty year old man.

 

From a FANS perspective its classic story telling. Hell didn't they do this with Bret last year in Minnesota? The Old Gun Slinger coming back for a shot at one last championship before he leaves. Did it make the other QB's look silly when 40 year old Bret was out playing them? Of course not because its sports and sometimes in sports we rise up above what we're capable of in order to win a championship.

 

The WWE hyped up Lawler's legendary career, they had the backstage stuff with him, the fans already like him on commentary, he's been around forever and I bet he's been on more RAW's than anybody else.

 

They didn't see it as Miz getting kicked around by an old man, they saw it as Miz screwing a fan favorite out of his life long dream.

 

What about Ric Flair? Did anybody complain that he nearly beat Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania? Ric was nearly in his sixities at that time.

 

Anyway I like The Miz because its a different champion. How long has it been since we had a by hook or by crook champion? I'm sick of the dominant, champions.

 

On a side note Alex Riley is getting really good on the mic pretty quick. He's clearly comfortable in his role.

 

Totally agree with this

 

Still, I see Lawler as a guy who really did deserve a World Championship run of his own back in his prime.

 

Just saw this and all i can say is : Why?

 

Lawler was a junk wrestler. He booked his own territory and -SURPRISE - stuck himself at the top for year and years and YEARS past the time anyone cared and basically killed off his own territory. And then he stuck his son at the top of the card, even when it was obvious he wasn't over with the fans.

 

He insulted the 'new generation of stars' repeatedly and specifically ECW despite the fact Memphis was generally garbage wrestling and crappy joke gimmicks (seriously, wrestlecrap.com is absolutely loaded with entries from Memphis). He called out guys like Taz for being too small when Lawler himself was *maybe* 5'8" -5'9"

 

If you take out the Andy Kaufman stuff, Jerry Lawler didn't do one significant thing in his entire wrestling career outside of the territory he ran. The only reason he's famous now is for acting like a perverted 16 year old and fomr having the good sense to kiss Vince's a** for a job when Verne Gagne and Jerry Jarrett refused.

 

Take him out of Memphis and he's the most overrated "star" of the modern wrestling era.

[LoNdOn]

I think people are too used to the Sheamus, Randy Orton, Triple H heel world champions where they are dominant in the ring and out.

 

You guys that are complaining about Miz looking bad against Lawler aren't thinking from the right point of view.

 

You guys are saying Lawler is a sixty year old man The Miz shouldn't have nearly lost to a sixty year old man.

 

From a FANS perspective its classic story telling. Hell didn't they do this with Bret last year in Minnesota? The Old Gun Slinger coming back for a shot at one last championship before he leaves. Did it make the other QB's look silly when 40 year old Bret was out playing them? Of course not because its sports and sometimes in sports we rise up above what we're capable of in order to win a championship.

 

The WWE hyped up Lawler's legendary career, they had the backstage stuff with him, the fans already like him on commentary, he's been around forever and I bet he's been on more RAW's than anybody else.

 

They didn't see it as Miz getting kicked around by an old man, they saw it as Miz screwing a fan favorite out of his life long dream.

 

What about Ric Flair? Did anybody complain that he nearly beat Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania? Ric was nearly in his sixities at that time.

 

Anyway I like The Miz because its a different champion. How long has it been since we had a by hook or by crook champion? I'm sick of the dominant, champions.

 

On a side note Alex Riley is getting really good on the mic pretty quick. He's clearly comfortable in his role.

 

Oh, don't get me wrong, I fully understand what they were doing. It just wasn't to my taste. I couldn't have been happier when Miz won the title, not only because he is fresh but also because I can't stand Randy Orton matches (we get it already, your mental; now stop flailing your limbs like a fish out of water you look ridiculous).

[Stennick]

Just saw this and all i can say is : Why?

 

Lawler was a junk wrestler. He booked his own territory and -SURPRISE - stuck himself at the top for year and years and YEARS past the time anyone cared and basically killed off his own territory. And then he stuck his son at the top of the card, even when it was obvious he wasn't over with the fans.

 

He insulted the 'new generation of stars' repeatedly and specifically ECW despite the fact Memphis was generally garbage wrestling and crappy joke gimmicks (seriously, wrestlecrap.com is absolutely loaded with entries from Memphis). He called out guys like Taz for being too small when Lawler himself was *maybe* 5'8" -5'9"

 

If you take out the Andy Kaufman stuff, Jerry Lawler didn't do one significant thing in his entire wrestling career outside of the territory he ran. The only reason he's famous now is for acting like a perverted 16 year old and fomr having the good sense to kiss Vince's a** for a job when Verne Gagne and Jerry Jarrett refused.

 

Take him out of Memphis and he's the most overrated "star" of the modern wrestling era.

 

I agree completely Lawler might be the most overrated "star" of the territory days. You know how when you're going on a blind date and you ask your buddy what the girl looks like? When he says she's got a great personality what does that tell you? She's ugly!

 

Same thing with Lawler. When the best thing I hear about the guy is that he throws "the best punch in the business" thats up there with Holly having "the best dropkick in the business".

 

Jerry hasn't even been entertaining in the booth in maybe ten years.

[jbergey_2005]

The fact they had you believing The King could win is justice to the match and to the performers in there. On paper if you could bet on wrestling im sure the odds and betting would be very in favour in The Miz winning so the fact they had you doubting it is testiment to the match. And although King did not do much he did enough to make it entertaining.

 

I thought the way the match was being hyped it was going to end up in favor of Jerry.

 

Miz talking about how he was going to have the longest title reign in history. Michael Cole repeatedly saying the King had no chance. The fact that is was the Kings birthday.

[jbergey_2005]

I think people are too used to the Sheamus, Randy Orton, Triple H heel world champions where they are dominant in the ring and out.

 

You guys that are complaining about Miz looking bad against Lawler aren't thinking from the right point of view.

 

You guys are saying Lawler is a sixty year old man The Miz shouldn't have nearly lost to a sixty year old man.

 

From a FANS perspective its classic story telling. Hell didn't they do this with Bret last year in Minnesota? The Old Gun Slinger coming back for a shot at one last championship before he leaves. Did it make the other QB's look silly when 40 year old Bret was out playing them? Of course not because its sports and sometimes in sports we rise up above what we're capable of in order to win a championship.

 

The WWE hyped up Lawler's legendary career, they had the backstage stuff with him, the fans already like him on commentary, he's been around forever and I bet he's been on more RAW's than anybody else.

 

They didn't see it as Miz getting kicked around by an old man, they saw it as Miz screwing a fan favorite out of his life long dream.

 

What about Ric Flair? Did anybody complain that he nearly beat Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania? Ric was nearly in his sixities at that time.

 

Anyway I like The Miz because its a different champion. How long has it been since we had a by hook or by crook champion? I'm sick of the dominant, champions.

 

On a side note Alex Riley is getting really good on the mic pretty quick. He's clearly comfortable in his role.

 

Well Brett Favre or Ric Flair hadnt been retired for almost 20 years when they came back. I dont feel the comparison is close. Ive seen the King wrestle in a random pay per view here and there over the past 10 years and he usually looked just terrible NOW they are booking that same person to look like he can beat the current WWE champion. Makes no sense to me.

 

I will never understand why people like weak champions. The last thing I want if Im buying a PPV is a show headlined by someone that needs 4 run-ins to keep his title every match.

 

IMO it makes the belt a complete joke. I realize its not suppose to be a "real" sport but Id like it much more if they'd tried to keep it in the general ballpark of a "real" sport.

 

Its an idea Ive been tossing around for a TEW dynasty. Booking a fed as a real sport instead of a soap opera with multiple run ins and over the top storylines.

[Stennick]

People like weak champions because people pay to see weak champions lose.

 

Again with sports there have been 9-7 teams reach the Super Bowl, my own St. Louis Cardinals went and won the World Series with less than ninety wins the lowest amount in the history of baseball.

 

What makes teams like that interesting is two things. One we have "mircale" runs in sports think George Mason teams or guys that go on an incredible run even when their seemingly matched up against more talented opponents. Thats how you book a "weak" champion as a babyface they're called underogs. Mikey Whipwreck won the ECW Championship doing this exact gimmick and it was highly praised for the storytelling it gave off.

 

At the same time think Arn Anderson or Tully Blanchard with the T.V Title, think the Honky Tonk Man with the I.C title. Guys that look like their beat hands down yet somehow they pull out a way to hang onto the championship week after week. People will buy pay per view and come to shows just so that they can see the guy lose. Its the entire basis of pro wrestling.

 

Heel talks a bunch of junk, should be beaten but somehow hangs onto the championship. Babyface rises up against all odds only to get screwed over one more time right before he wins resulting in him continuing to hunt and stalk the heel until he finally wins the championship. People want to pay to see their hero win and they want to pay to see the lucky, ****y, S.O.B lose.

 

If this was ROH then yes I would say you have to be careful who you put the championship on but in the WWE they have proven time and time again that the fans will buy ANYONE as a champion. Remember how everyone said Sheamus wasn't ready for the title and it was too soon and blah blah blah. PPV buys didn't drop, ratings didn't fall, house show attendance stayed the same. I've said it a million times in here the WWE can put ANYONE as their World Champion and business will be the same.

 

I hate "he's not ready for the title" talk because its complete b.s. There are very very few times if ever that the WWE put the title on someone and it wound up being bad for business. If business is good its going to stay good no matter who has the title and if its bad its going to be bad no matter who has the title. The only thing that will change this is either good or bad storytelling for good or bad. If you have a good story for a guy thats "not ready" for the title the fans aren't going to care. I'm of the belief they could debut G Rilla (NXT guy) on Monday have him win the WWE Championship in his debut match and as long as there was an interesting story behind it you wouldn't see a single drop in any WWE business.

 

That being said if you're looking to see a title booked as "real sports championship" then why would you be looking at the WWE or TNA? Thats like saying I want ROH to be more like the WWE. If thats what I want then watch the WWE, if I want the WWE to be more like ROH then I should watch ROH. Just like in the C Verse there are options for everyone.

[jbergey_2005]

That being said if you're looking to see a title booked as "real sports championship" then why would you be looking at the WWE or TNA? Thats like saying I want ROH to be more like the WWE. If thats what I want then watch the WWE, if I want the WWE to be more like ROH then I should watch ROH. Just like in the C Verse there are options for everyone.

 

Id probably like ROH better but I have the slightest idea on how or where Id watch it. Its been talked about repeatedly but I cant even comment on it because Ive never seen it on TV.