WWE Championship Tournament Game

[Self]

Lots of easy choices. Randy still hasn't made the mark I expect him to. Shawn's the better worker than Trips, but not the better champion. Angle's great, but Hogan's Hogan.

 

The Ultimate Warrior vs. Bruno Sammartino

Steve Austin vs. Randy Savage

John Cena vs. Randy Orton

The Undertaker vs. Pedro Morales

The Rock vs. Bob Backlund

Bret Hart vs. Eddie Guerrero

Triple H vs. Shawn Michaels

Hulk Hogan vs. Kurt Angle

[justtxyank]

The Ultimate Warrior vs. Bruno Sammartino

Steve Austin vs. Randy Savage

John Cena vs. Randy Orton

The Undertaker vs. Pedro Morales

The Rock vs. Bob Backlund

Bret Hart vs. Eddie Guerrero

Triple H vs. Shawn Michaels

Hulk Hogan vs. Kurt Angle

 

Warrior was a bunk champion plain and simple.

 

Savage is one of my favorites ever, like him way more than Austin, but as champion, Austin defined an era. No matter how good Savage was (and he was great) his reigns as champion were always him holding the belt while Hogan or Flair took a break from the title.

 

Backlund over the Rock for me because again, Backlund defined an era. The Rock was never a great champion in my mind as he was always overshadowed by Austin.

 

Bret Hart is a no brainer. He carried a company as the champion and gave legitimacy to the belt.

 

HBK vs HHH was really tough for me. I like both guys a lot and struggled with who to pick. In the end I picked HHH because HBK's window as the true top dog of the company was so much shorter. HHH's heel reigns as champion from 99(?) on were the focal point of the industry.

 

Hogan over ___________ is a no brainer. The only two who can compete with him are Austin and Hart, and I'm not sure either really does.

[Tha Black Phenom]

The Ultimate Warrior vs. Bruno Sammartino

 

Steve Austin vs. Randy Savage

 

John Cena vs. Randy Orton

 

The Undertaker vs. Pedro Morales

 

The Rock vs. Bob Backlund

 

Bret Hart vs. Eddie Guerrero

 

Triple H vs. Shawn Michaels

 

Hulk Hogan vs. Kurt Angle

[cappyboy]

 

Hogan over ___________ is a no brainer. The only two who can compete with him are Austin and Hart, and I'm not sure either really does.

 

I don't know about that. I think that's why Sammartino's on the other side of the bracket. If there's a guy before Hogan that represents similar things to what the Hulkster does, it's Bruno. And with Backlund, do remember that you needed Iron Sheik to be a bridge between Backlund and Hogan. Much as I like Bret, I don't think I put him in the conversation of competing with Hogan in this context. Sammartino, Backlund and Austin were all much more "the man" during their reigns than Bret Hart was

[moon_lit_tears]

The Ultimate Warrior vs. Bruno Sammartino[

 

Steve Austin vs.Randy Savage

 

John Cena vs. Randy Orton

 

The Undertaker vs. Pedro Morales

 

The Rock vs. Bob Backlund

 

Bret Hart vs. Eddie Guerrero

 

Triple H vs. Shawn Michaels

 

Hulk Hogan vs. Kurt Angle

[GruntMark]

The Ultimate Warrior vs. Bruno Sammartino

 

Steve Austin vs.Randy Savage

 

John Cena vs. Randy Orton

 

The Undertaker vs. Pedro Morales

 

The Rock vs. Bob Backlund

 

Bret Hart vs. Eddie Guerrero

 

Triple H vs. Shawn Michaels

 

Hulk Hogan vs. Kurt Angle

[BHK1978]

I want to add to the whole Pedro Morales thing, I believe he was the first Triple Crown Winner in the WWWF/WWF/WWE (All though I could be wrong about that.).

 

I am still ticked off about Superstar Billy Graham losing in the first round...

[RingofHonorGuard]

The Ultimate Warrior vs. Bruno Sammartino

-Sammartino would put a beating on Warrior in a shoot fight, but come on... Warrior beat Hogan at Wrestlemania for the belt, end of story.

 

Steve Austin vs.Randy Savage

-Would be a close match, but I'll always remember Savage for his Intercontinental title run more than his World runs.

 

John Cena vs. Randy Orton

-Cena is the more accomplished star at this point, but Randy would put up a fight as he always does.

 

The Undertaker vs. Pedro Morales

-Possibly the squash match of the round in my eyes. Taker by whatever he wants and when.

 

The Rock vs. Bob Backlund

-Backlund was a great stretcher, and fairly cunning with his psychology... But The Rock is probably behind Hogan as the greatest WWF(E) champion ever.

 

Bret Hart vs. Eddie Guerrero

-Bret's ability to make anyone he faced look legitimate wins him the match, Guerrero had a lot more talent to work with in my opinion.

 

Triple H vs. Shawn Michaels

-Had a seriously hard time picking this one, just based off of the legendary Michaels/Hart feud alone. But I just feel like 20 years from now when you're looking back on the title history, Triple H's reigns are going to seem more of substance.

 

Hulk Hogan vs. Kurt Angle

-Hogan after the hulk up after Angle gives him everything that he possibly can.

[crownsy]

The Ultimate Warrior v Bruno Sammartino

 

Stone Cold v Randy Savage

 

John Cena v Randy Orton

 

 

Undertaker v Pedro Morales

 

 

The Rock v Bob Backlund

 

 

Bret Hart v Eddie Guerrero

 

 

Trips v HBK

 

 

Hogan v Angle

 

No time for writing out reasons before class, might later but i think for most of my picks someone has covered why way better than i can

[BHK1978]

Sammartino would put a beating on Warrior in a shoot fight, but come on... Warrior beat Hogan at Wrestlemania for the belt, end of story.

 

Ah, but how many times did Warrior sell out MSG on his name alone? Bruno did a lot in the 60's and 70's. And Bruno held the title for ten years straight, nobody can or will ever be able say they did that besides him.

[TheEdgeOfReason]

Ah, but how many times did Warrior sell out MSG on his name alone? Bruno did a lot in the 60's and 70's. And Bruno held the title for ten years straight, nobody can or will ever be able say they did that besides him.

 

He may have held it for 10 years. But how many times did the fans see him? Fans probably seen more of Warriors 8 month reign than they did of Sammartinos 10 year reign.

[BHK1978]

He may have held it for 10 years. But how many times did the fans see him? Fans probably seen more of Warriors 8 month reign than they did of Sammartinos 10 year reign.

 

True but it was a different time. That is like saying Alex Rodriguez should be considered a better baseball player than Babe Ruth because more people have watched A-Rod play baseball (Sorry if you are not a fan of baseball that was what came to my head first). Bruno meant more to the WWWF than The Ultimate Warrior did, Bruno headlined shows for three decades. Whereas the Warrior was a flash in the pan.

[Stennick]

A day later and two different polls are extremely close. One poll is within one vote and the other one is within two votes. Some of the rest are being won by as much as ten votes.

[Hyde Hill]

True but it was a different time. That is like saying Alex Rodriguez should be considered a better baseball player than Babe Ruth because more people have watched A-Rod play baseball (Sorry if you are not a fan of baseball that was what came to my head first). Bruno meant more to the WWWF than The Ultimate Warrior did, Bruno headlined shows for three decades. Whereas the Warrior was a flash in the pan.

 

Problem is baseball is an actual sport, wrestling isn't. In baseball statistics and wins matter, in wrestling a lot less. But I get the for his time reference which is prevalent everywhere and makes stuff like this always hard to do.

[Stennick]

So where do you side Mr. Hill? Bruno or Warrriah?

[Hyde Hill]

I don't know about that. I think that's why Sammartino's on the other side of the bracket. If there's a guy before Hogan that represents similar things to what the Hulkster does, it's Bruno. And with Backlund, do remember that you needed Iron Sheik to be a bridge between Backlund and Hogan. Much as I like Bret, I don't think I put him in the conversation of competing with Hogan in this context. Sammartino, Backlund and Austin were all much more "the man" during their reigns than Bret Hart was

 

I find it slightly odd that Hart and Michaels do not get the same flack as Diesel gets as they where champions in the same time period. Diesel always gets the lowest drawing champ thing thrown at him but because of their in ring skill it is never mentioned of Hart and Michaels. Combine that with the fact that all three where more a victim of total product and a general down swing which heavily indicates that total product is more important then who your main event star is once you get to a national/cult level.

[Hyde Hill]

So where do you side Mr. Hill? Bruno or Warrriah?

 

Bruno but I already voted via the poll.

[Stennick]

Shawn was not a great champion. He most memorable matches are matches he's won the championship in but since you're not the champion until after the match you can't really count them towards his title reigns. WMXII and Survivor Series 97 were very memorable but he wasn't the champion going into either.

 

In retrospect I think those same matches for Bret make him a tad bit more of an interesting CHAMPION.

[BHK1978]

I find it slightly odd that Hart and Michaels do not get the same flack as Diesel gets as they where champions in the same time period. Diesel always gets the lowest drawing champ thing thrown at him but because of their in ring skill it is never mentioned of Hart and Michaels. Combine that with the fact that all three where more a victim of total product and a general down swing which heavily indicates that total product is more important then who your main event star is once you get to a national/cult level.

 

Yes I agree with you on that (even though I brought up the Diesel thing in the first round). The WWF was just really bad in that time period and I think that helped transition the sport away from being a champion centric sport and into what it has become now, more of a brand name sport.

 

For example, people are not going to watch the WWF more if Cena is or is not the main champion. Some people might watch it less because he is champion but the champion is no longer what is the driving force of the business. At least in my opinion.

[Stennick]

Thats absolutely correct, they could lose Randy Orton, John Cena Sheamus, CM Punk and The Undertaker and I would bet money it would be a minor shift in the ratings.

 

Just like Randy Orton and John Cena could be advertised for a month to show up live on Impact and they still wouldn't be Vince in the ratings.

 

Its brands not champions that move the business these days. The WWE truly is professional wrestling to 80+% of the fanbase. I know people that won't watch TNA just because they are that loyal to the WWE. Maybe they are the same people that hung around in 96 when things were bad for Vince, or maybe they got burned being so dedicated to WCW only to see it die. I'm not saying their right or its the way to go but its brands more than men these days.

 

That being said if TNA landed The Rock I think they could beat Vince in the ratings. I don't think Austin could do it, I don't think Cena, Orton or anyone else can. The Rock though he's still got mainstream appeal like the day he left if not more thanks to Hollywood.

[TheEdgeOfReason]

True but it was a different time. That is like saying Alex Rodriguez should be considered a better baseball player than Babe Ruth because more people have watched A-Rod play baseball (Sorry if you are not a fan of baseball that was what came to my head first). Bruno meant more to the WWWF than The Ultimate Warrior did, Bruno headlined shows for three decades. Whereas the Warrior was a flash in the pan.

 

My point is there was nothing to stop WWF running the a show in Boston then running the same show a month later in NYC. How many people would have seen both shows? Whereas when TV came in, everybody could see the consecutive shows and thus wrestling had a fundamental change. Title reigns were never that long again for a reason.

[BHK1978]

Just wanted to add to that look at Ring of Honor, how many top names have they lost over the years? And they still put on a good product. If this were the 1970's or even the 1980's and a company lost talent the caliber of Nigel and The American Dragon on the same night, well that would be the death knell of that company. However, now it is not that big of a deal. They just have to create new stars.

[Hive]

I don't quite understand how much some of you guys obsess over title lengths.

 

Yes, Bruno had the title for 10 years while others on the list maybe had the title for 10 months. But the times were VERY different. Back then, you didn't get to actually see the guy all that often, so you didn't get overexposed to/tired of him quite as fast as you did with title holders in the 90's and, especially, now - all because of TV exposure.

 

A 10-year reign in the 70's was extremely impressive, but it would probably equal to a 1-year reign nowadays. Relatively speaking.

[crownsy]

I agree Hive. While I'd certainly like to see the title reigns of today last a bit longer, you have to admit that the times are very different from the days when guys routinely held the belt for a year plus.

 

As Hive and others alluded to, back in the 70's and 80's...heck even in the early 90's, The WWE or whatever other promotion you chose, could get away with running the same show for a month, and no one outside the hardcore fanbase that made multiple trips to the arena would know.

 

With TV today, your seeing the equivalent of 5 months or so of that era each month of TV programing. 4 weeks + the PPV. thats extremely hard to keep story "fresh" through.

 

And that's not even adding in that the net generation wouldn't tolerate it. This is the age of the internet and instant gratification. Can you imagine today's sports entertainment fan putting up with even a guy like the aformentioned guys holding onto the title for a year or two?? they'd go nuts with our current short attention spans for entertainment.

 

Every site would have pages dedicated to how the champ is burying x, or how x,y and z deserve a shot with the belt, or how stale x is with the belt (example: the last long runs of trips and cena. there was real hate for those guys by 3-4 months in)

 

 

 

So, unless you have a absolutely money champ (Hogan, Rock, SCSA, vintage Kurt), who can work back to back to back programs with different angles and opponents to keep his reign fresh, you are going to have to trade the title to extend storylines and limit over exposure. and, again back to the short attention span of our society due to instant gratification, even those guys would be hard pressed.

 

For that reason i don't really equate long title runs in the past with the way the belt is now. It was a different era.

[Stennick]

The current round ends at midnight tomorrow night and as it stands right now.

 

There are two polls that are separated by four votes, one thats separated by two and one that is separated by ONE vote. There could be a HUGE upset this round.