Jaysin Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 This is slightly random and doesn't fit in with the topic at hand but this is the WWE thread, after all. How about at WrestleMania 29, we have The Undertaker defend his streak against...CM Punk?!?! Here's how it happens. CM Punk keeps his title over the next few months, cementing his heel status and talking about wanting respect, etc. Then he goes against The Rock at Royal Rumble. The match is even, back and forth. The end comes as CM Punk goes for the GTS but The Rock reverses into a Rock Bottom. Rock covers but the referee has been knocked down so there's no pinfall. John Cena attacks The Rock, hitting the AA and CM Punk retains his title. That same night, the Deadman returns at the Royal Rumble, winning the Royal Rumble itself. The following night on Raw he makes his choice to face the man who wants 'respect.' If CM Punk wants respect, he'll have the chance to earn it in the Deadman's Playground at WrestleMania. Thoughts? I'm torn, I don't want Undertaker to beat Punk for the title or be champion at all, but I don't want Punk to end the streak. I think Punk and Taker could tear the house down majorly though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makhai Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 I'll give you 2000 HHH Showtime, but Makhai, you seriously have missed a lot of Regal's career if you think that's what his entire character has been. His King of the Ring run? Freaking brilliant. His ECW feud with Christian? Awesome, or go back to his Blue Bloods days. He made a stereotypical anti American British snob, something special. The dude can play a villain better than most. It's ridiculously natural for him. I might be a bit bias because Regal was the first heel I really got behind as a kid, but saying his character has been nothing but stale bread? That's a load. I can happily state, I never watched any of the new ECW(besides every Tiffany promo for comedic value) and I'm happy I didn't. As to his Blue Blood days, Meh. He was lower on the totem pole than the decrepit Nasty Boyz during most of that era. And that was pre-Hogan heel turn. He was never really on Nitro, he was always on WCW Saturday Night/Main Event, and I didn't TBS until after the nWo started running wild. That was fine with me, thought he was the homeless man's Dean Malenko with a crappy gimmick. Still do. He's a fun commentator though, and always good for a fun backstage story. But his on-screen work never did anything for me. Generation gap, perhaps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angeldelayette Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 I'm torn, I don't want Undertaker to beat Punk for the title or be champion at all, but I don't want Punk to end the streak. I think Punk and Taker could tear the house down majorly though. That first part is kind of my point. There was never any threat to the streak being ended by Shawn Michaels or Triple H these last few years, IMHO. But with this scenario, it lends itself to a true threat of the streak being ended. It lines people up on both sides of the equation. And if the WWE wanted UT to win but not hold the title, could always have him retire and vacate the belt afterward. But this truly gives a threat to the streak that I haven't felt in a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teh_Showtime Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 I can happily state, I never watched any of the new ECW(besides every Tiffany promo for comedic value) and I'm happy I didn't. Christian and Jack Swagger was one of the better things for the WWE in 2009 Literally churned out amazing matches every week. And before that was the Morrison vs Punk days you missed out On the subject of Taker vs Punk though, it should never be for the title now because Taker can only work one match per year so that doesn't work and just winning and vacating the title does nothing to help anyone. Would be a good match but I just want to see Taker call it a career soon, people have been overrating his matches like crazy recently (after the classic WM25 match) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigtplaystew Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 ECW had something RAW fans have been crying over for it seems like years now: Zack Ryder on TV actually wrestling. Being completely honest here, when ECW was on, I watched it in it's entirety without skipping with the DVR far more frequently than Smackdown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teh_Showtime Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 CM Punk's title reign vs history http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/cm-punk-title-reign-vs-history-26048726 Title has no prestige but his current reign is merely 15 days away from being longer than all seven of The Rock’s WWE Championship runs combined. Thank you Punk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makhai Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Christian and Jack Swagger was one of the better things for the WWE in 2009 Literally churned out amazing matches every week. And before that was the Morrison vs Punk days you missed out It could have been the most amazing, wonderful thing on T.V, but it wasn't Sandman vs. Raven, Terry Funk wasn't falling off ladders, woman weren't being driven through tables, Taz wasn't choking MMA fighters out, and 9-1-1 wasn't chokslamming Bill Alfanso... I wasn't even a huge ECW fan didn't really appreciate it until it was long gone. Saw some of the TNN stuff(We've Got Pop) However, I was a huge nWo mark(who wasn't) and I watched plenty of RAW and bought every WWF PPV I could with my allowance. I enjoyed the different flavors, wrestling was fun back then. The "new" ECW wasn't what it needed to be, nor what I wanted, it was just more attempts to create fake competition so it could retain a huge roster and choke out REAL competition. The kind that allowed the business to thrive. All it served to do was piss all over every fan that preferred products that weren't their own, pre-1999. And waterdown/overexpose their own product. Watching the Batista vs. Big Show match, you can just see the maniacally smiling Vince watermark underneath it. That's right Vince, smile now, cry when you realize you've destroyed the most loyal crowd since the Von Erich's were in the Sportatorium... It was about the time I checked out... Between that and the continuous stream of WCW guys getting buried that was pretty much the last straw. Again, I know most of you are Millennial fans(ie fans who started watching post-2000) so all of this stuff doesn't mean much to you and that's fine. I'm just filling in my perspective so you guys know where I'm coming from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaysin Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Again, I know most of you are Millennial fans(ie fans who started watching post-2000) so all of this stuff doesn't mean much to you and that's fine. I'm just filling in my perspective so you guys know where I'm coming from. Man, I don't know if I'd even really be a fan of wrestling if I started watching after 2000. My parents tell me when I was like 2 or 3 I'd run around cupping my hands around my mouth and woo'ing like Sting. I've had the honor of meeting a lot of wrestlers, but man, I'd kill to meet Sting. There's not one "celebrity" that I've followed longer than him. I can remember my mom's boyfriend secretly ordering Bash at the Beach 1996 so we can see who the mystery third man was. I was only 9 when that pay per view happened and man, when Hogan, the guy who had been teaming with Savage and Sting against the Horsemen came out and helped the Outsiders? Broke my heart. I feel like a little kid again talking about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teh_Showtime Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 It could have been the most amazing, wonderful thing on T.V, but it wasn't Sandman vs. Raven, Terry Funk wasn't falling off ladders, woman weren't being driven through tables, Taz wasn't choking MMA fighters out, and 9-1-1 wasn't chokslamming Bill Alfanso... It actually had good matches without the need for blood and weapons though. People just get too sentimental about the name And no I've been watching wrestling since the 90s, I just don't have nostalgia goggles masking the bad (there was a lot of) and only seeing the good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makhai Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 It actually had good matches without the need for blood and weapons though. People just get too sentimental about the name And no I've been watching wrestling since the 90s, I just don't have nostalgia goggles masking the bad (there was a lot of) and only seeing the good Would you buy Playboy and then stop showing naked ladies? Would you then say, we've got a great product here without the need for female genitals? Things didn't end well for the Puritans folks, lets not make the same mistake twice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSelfDestruct Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Would you buy Playboy and then stop showing naked ladies? Would you then say, we've got a great product here without the need for female genitals? Things didn't end well for the Puritans folks, lets not make the same mistake twice. I agree it wasnt the ECW we all grew to love. but a third brand isn't such a bad idea (that is if WWE can stick to the brands for once) guys who get somewhat overlooked like Christian and Swagger were perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rone Rivendale Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Would you buy Playboy and then stop showing naked ladies? Would you then say, we've got a great product here without the need for female genitals? Things didn't end well for the Puritans folks, lets not make the same mistake twice. ECW wasn't about blood and gore. That's just the only thing people seem to remember. ECW had great high flying matches with people like Rey Mysterio. Great technical matches with people like Lance Storm. And just plain great matches period like the long standing feud between RVD and Jerry Lynn. Their best champion was Tazz, the suplex machine. Yes, there was chairs and tables and ladders and a REALLY f'ing annoying guy in New Jack who would do stupid crap like use a staple gun. But that isn't what ECW stood for. It stood for great wrestling, no matter the style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSelfDestruct Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 ECW wasn't about blood and gore. That's just the only thing people seem to remember. ECW had great high flying matches with people like Rey Mysterio. Great technical matches with people like Lance Storm. And just plain great matches period like the long standing feud between RVD and Jerry Lynn. Their best champion was Tazz, the suplex machine. Yes, there was chairs and tables and ladders and a REALLY f'ing annoying guy in New Jack who would do stupid crap like use a staple gun. But that isn't what ECW stood for. It stood for great wrestling, no matter the style. I agree, it had a wonderful mix of things, but it was ALOT more realistic and violent than WWE or WCW. thats what I remember rather than hardcore, blood, and guts. The storylines were realistic and people werent put with cheesy gimmicks other than comedic ones. It was edgy. WWE's version was nothing like the original at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigtplaystew Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 ECW was a great company in it's time. Great angles, great matches, varying styles. It was a fantastic time to be a fan. If any of you got to the Hammerstein Ballroom shows or especially the ECW Arena shows you know. The connection those guys had with the fans in the NY/Nj/Philly area was very special. Obviously, WWECW has nothing to do with those days. It just existed. I never got why they used the name, they should have just done something different, but they wanted some brand recognition for television and it made sense at the time I guess. It just upset some of their long time fans. But oh well, life moves on. Nothing WWE did ever tained MY memory of the original ECW. It never went anyway, it's not going anywhere. A company that important will be remembered as long as people are around who remember it :-) It was unforgettable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milamber Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 SD Highlights: Sheamus v Sandow (who kept rolling out of the ring -- funny stuff). Sin Cara putting a mask on Rhodes. Kidd/Gabriel v PTP. Josh Matthews being terrorized by Kane. Ziggler v Orton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackman Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 ECW wasn't about blood and gore. That's just the only thing people seem to remember. ECW had great high flying matches with people like Rey Mysterio. Great technical matches with people like Lance Storm. And just plain great matches period like the long standing feud between RVD and Jerry Lynn. Their best champion was Tazz, the suplex machine. True words indeed. It was cult wrestling at its finest, and they ruined it by capitalizing on the "name value". It's logical however that they associated the name with hardcore, as that was the "uniqueness" of the promotion. You didn't have that in WWF. At least not that brutal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappyboy Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 ECW wasn't about blood and gore. That's just the only thing people seem to remember. ECW had great high flying matches with people like Rey Mysterio. Great technical matches with people like Lance Storm. And just plain great matches period like the long standing feud between RVD and Jerry Lynn. Their best champion was Tazz, the suplex machine. Yes, there was chairs and tables and ladders and a REALLY f'ing annoying guy in New Jack who would do stupid crap like use a staple gun. But that isn't what ECW stood for. It stood for great wrestling, no matter the style. Agreed. That's the paradox of ECW. I wouldn't have hated them nearly as much if what Brother Rivendale were saying weren't true. If ECW had just been blood and gore, I could have just laughed them off and ignored them. But it was the fact ECW had all these dimensions. That they brought in the international talent you usually didn't get to see on the eastern side of the US. They could go from your Mysterios and Lynns to your Storms and Maritatos to your Bigelows and Douglases almost effortlessly. And yet they felt the need to disguise all that awesomeness behind the cloak of edgy characters and idiots bludgeoning each other with whatever object wasn't nailed down. That's why I hated ECW. There were so many reasons I wanted to like the company. Reasons I wanted BADLY to like them. They had so much that was good for wrestling. But instead of taking advantage of that fact, they insisted on burying those elements behind a facade I just couldn't stomach. So when WWECW came along, I was a big fan. It utilized what I felt were some of the best elements of ECW without the junk that made my stomach turn at the sight of the original. You got the fresh talent. You got love for the guys who needed it. You got strong matches and stories. Without the iconic figures who were no better than the men they were fighting. Without the rushing because putting some poor stiff violently through a table is part of our image dammit. Or any of the other excesses that made ECW Prime so frustrating. If not for WWECW, I wouldn't have one happy memory of Tommy Dreamer post T.D. Madison. And even in that case I'd spend more time wondering whatever happened to G.Q. Madison than thinking about Tommy as little brother T.D. It was in WWECW Tommy went from paradoxically beloved hypocrite to truly lovable grizzled vet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigtplaystew Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 I liked WWECW because it was more wrestling on TV. that's why I liked RAW going 3 hours, and that's why I'll pay whatever they want for that damn network. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makhai Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 ECW wasn't about blood and gore. That's just the only thing people seem to remember. ECW had great high flying matches with people like Rey Mysterio. Great technical matches with people like Lance Storm. And just plain great matches period like the long standing feud between RVD and Jerry Lynn. Their best champion was Tazz, the suplex machine. Yes, there was chairs and tables and ladders and a REALLY f'ing annoying guy in New Jack who would do stupid crap like use a staple gun. But that isn't what ECW stood for. It stood for great wrestling, no matter the style. I never said it wasn't, but it's style was much, MUCH, more demanding than would ever be palatable to Vincent J. MacMahon. Can't be a muscle fetishist if you need those guys to actually do something besides suck wind... So why set that bar for yourself? It made no sense then, it makes less sense by the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazorbeak Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 I never said it wasn't, but it's style was much, MUCH, more demanding than would ever be palatable to Vincent J. MacMahon. Can't be a muscle fetishist if you need those guys to actually do something besides suck wind... So why set that bar for yourself? It made no sense then, it makes less sense by the day. I can understand not liking the idea of using the ECW name for a WWE product, but what are you talking about here? Muscle fetishists sucking wind? Did I blank and confuse ECW with a bodybuilding federation from 20 years ago? It's not like ECW was a place to regularly watch Shelton Benjamin, Christian, CM Punk, Chavo Guerrero and countless others a chance to go out and have strong wrestling matches, right? It was nothing but bicep flexing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astil Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 I can understand not liking the idea of using the ECW name for a WWE product, but what are you talking about here? Muscle fetishists sucking wind? Did I blank and confuse ECW with a bodybuilding federation from 20 years ago? It's not like ECW was a place to regularly watch Shelton Benjamin, Christian, CM Punk, Chavo Guerrero and countless others a chance to go out and have strong wrestling matches, right? It was nothing but bicep flexing. Glad I'm not the only one who remembers the epic Big Show vs. Scott Stiener pose off from ECW on Sci Fi. Good times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angeldelayette Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Has everyone else here been watching the promos for 'The USA Guy?' Hilarious! Here are a couple of them: These are just great, IMHO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makhai Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Glad I'm not the only one who remembers the epic Big Show vs. Scott Stiener pose off from ECW on Sci Fi. Good times. The first 4 ECW world champions... The Big Show, Bobby Lashley, Vince MacMahon, Bobby Lashey... You're honor, I rest my case. The "great wrestling" only came later. After the damage had been done. Note: "" represent the fact I've never seen a quality WWECW match in my life, so like Bigfoot, people tell me it's real.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makhai Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Has everyone else here been watching the promos for 'The USA Guy?' Hilarious! Here are a couple of them: These are just great, IMHO! They're good. But I have a tough time seeing another comedy character making it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakerNGN74 Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 The first 4 ECW world champions... The Big Show, Bobby Lashley, Vince MacMahon, Bobby Lashey... You're honor, I rest my case. The "great wrestling" only came later. After the damage had been done. Note: "" represent the fact I've never seen a quality WWECW match in my life, so like Bigfoot, people tell me it's real.... You forgot to mention the first WWECW Champion Rob Van Dam who was champion for two whole weeks before being an idiot and losing the title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.