Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

  1. #1
    Senior Member sillyrabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    222

    Question Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    Honestly, I thought of John Cena after reading a specific sentence from his comments. There was a claim that Cena made that bothered me during his contract signing with Orton. That is, he'd said that he'd earned the World Heavyweight title... Really? Is that right? So you weren't put in a World Heavyweight championship match at the Hell In The Cell PPV as your first match back from surgery. Predictably, you'd won the match. I contend that Mr. McMahon and the WWE writers gave you the World Heavyweight title to take it off of Del Rio and, presumably, help to improve the Smackdown ratings. Wait. Does Cena even appear on Smackdown? I rarely watch it. Funny, I would've guessed that Cena would've challenged Orton for the WWE title once he was healthy. I mean, Triple H did help Orton and screw your good friend Bryan. Why not pickup from where you'd left off from losing the WWE title to Bryan? Why not involve Cena in the Orton versus Bryan storyline? I try to look at the bigger picture, but the World Heavyweight championship match at the Hell In The Cell PPV seem random after it was announced.

    Cena said, "Let's cut to the chase. You were given that, I earned this..."

    No, you were given your title too. I know that he meant it in the context of the storyline. But you sound like a hypocrite... Here's where I concur with Cornette. In my opinion, Cena doesn't need either championship. He could be like the Rock and Austin and The Undertaker in that sense. It doesn't matter. If you're the top face or heel in the company, you're already over with the fans. However, Cena needs the main title like Batman needs his cowl. So Cena isn't like the aforementioned stars. He dislikes being plain, ordinary. He or Mr. McMahon believes he must have jimmies or sprinkles. Moreover, a prime example of why it's easy to not buy into what Cena's saying is he's always saying what your fans want to hear or expect you to say as a superhero. Or is it a role model? It's cliche. What he's really doing is pandering... It comes off insincere to me. The truth is, nobody earns anything in wrestling as far as championships. It's a storyline plain and simple. A championship's put on you if they [the WWE] can market you and you make the company more money and help to maintain a certain ratings number. Also known as, being able to talk the talk. Admittedly, Cena does this well. He sells the company's brand name and his character's brand name. Conversely, he wasn't a fan of the "Cena Sucks" t-shirts. Actually, he helped to sell those by his own existence. But don't sell me this company man routine. It's phony as... Never mind. I don't want to rouse up the Cena police and hear their baby talk. If this isn't you, then I'm not referring you. Typically, they will say, you're a "Hater." Or, the new one is, you're "Jelly."

    I digress. I know a lot of people from the wrestling business would disagree about the opinions of Cornette because they dislike him or believe that he has an agenda. But he's straightforward and insightful. I like to listen to what he has to say on certain topics at least. I mean, the comment about Bret Hart's a valid point. That is to say, when you're a top tier wrestler in the wrestling business, one can easily lose sight of where you'd came from and where you're at. If you aren't a champion, you can become a champion. If you're a champion, you can lose that championship next month.

    I don't always think that having a championship serves as a prop for you. Especially, when you're already over with the fans like Dean Ambrose, for example. He's the United States Champion. On the other hand, you might as well not be the title holder if your title's defended infrequently. That's a problem in the wrestling business as well. The idle championship. The irrelevant championship. Oh, I didn't even know who the current title holder was. Exactly. But I don't think today's fans necessarily want another Hulk Hogan. A champion who seemingly never loses a title match. But that would make for an excellent debate. Do you prefer to see the main champion have a long title reign, or have multiple title reigns after each defeat? Either way the outcome will be predictable. Then I prefer the old school argument. You win once, or what have you, and hold the title for a long time like Demolition. The intrigue comes from the opponents. Obviously, the drawback is, your match is only as good as your opponent. If he looks weak, you look bad and the match is a disaster. Well, unless you're The Undertaker of course. Yes. I'm looking at you Ultimate Warrior.



    "Well now the problem is, the title instead of being viewed as the prize in sports, the titles have been used as props. Oh lets switch the belt onto this guy or that guy, oh let the guy cash in a briefcase and cover the dead guy that's just been beaten up. It's just been turned into a prop, it's been devalued, it's been prostituted. Besides that, now that everyone pretty much knows pro wrestling is choreographed, pre-determined, whatever you wanna call it, everyone knows you're not really the champion and someone just awards you it.

    "The only thing that ever annoyed me about the Bret Hart screwjob in Montreal is Bret called the newspapers in Montreal to tell them he's been screwed and hadn't really lost the title. Well he didn't call them when he won the thing and say, 'oh I didn't really win it, someone just gave it to me.' Now, It's a shiny belt that people can buy a replica of and it's another tool in our toolkit that we've devalued to the point where it doesn't make us any money anymore and it's sad."

    http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2013/1218/568448/jim-cornette-talks-wwe-title-unification/




  2. #2
    Childlike Wonder Djm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    192.168.1.100
    Posts
    12,662

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    Just going by what is in bold, the entire construct of professional wrestling should just be shutdown and the entire industry can stop operating.

    Because going by that, no one can suspend their disbelief on anything or is even allowed to enjoy themselves if they don't. So, to Jim Cornette, pro wrestling is so far out of the bag it shouldn't even exist anymore.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Champ View Post
    I'll be honest, I'll probably chant CM Punk in Brooklyn again.

    I'm a follower.

  3. #3
    Konnichiwa! Krimzon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Age
    28
    Posts
    8,627

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    I agree with Cornette pretty much about everything. Guy is an A+ interview. He's spot on here.


  4. #4

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    I've always said the championship has been devalued due to how often it changes hands.
    It's a prop.

    I used to be able to recall all the WWF champions from the beginning from memory but that went out the window ~1998.
    Austin beat Michaels, Kane beat Austin, Austin beat Kane the next day and after that I forget...

    Now, the whole "face of WWE" becomes important, becuz a lot of guys get their turn as champ.
    But there is only one "face of WWE", which right now is John Cena.

  5. #5
    An AJPW Guy Emperor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    England
    Age
    25
    Posts
    8,853

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    I agree with most of what Cornette says. However, as DJM pointed out, he took his point way too far when he essentially said nothing matters because pro-wrestling is scripted. The two sentences before that, however, hit the nail on the head.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Cornette
    Well now the problem is, the title instead of being viewed as the prize in sports, the titles have been used as props. Oh lets switch the belt onto this guy or that guy, oh let the guy cash in a briefcase and cover the dead guy that's just been beaten up, it's just been turned into a prop, it’s been devalued, it's been prostituted.
    As Cornette says, both the World Heavyweight Championship and the WWE Championship have been devalued over the years to the point where either champion (but especially the former) isn't necessarily the best wrestler in the company, the man to beat. John Cena and The Undertaker have pretty much always been those guys, whether they held the title or not. The Money In The Bank concept didn't help at all with this, where some jabroni could become the WWE Champion (the supposed best wrestler in the company) by falling on top of a dead guy. Definitely a prop. As far as the title unification goes, I think this is a big step towards restoring credibility to the World/WWE Title. However, Cena is still the man to beat, and Orton is the champ. He did beat Cena clean though, so that's something.

  6. #6
    Resident Jackass StunVKMcmahon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    South Jersey
    Age
    36
    Posts
    782

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    It's a prop like a lightsaber is in Star Wars. Doesnt really do much in real life, but kinda hard to have a movie without it. Of COURSE everything is scripted. It's a show. Here's why I stopped getting emotionally invested in the product whenI was 12. It's entertainment, pure and simple. Some stories and characters I like, others not so much. But you can't not use the title for it's intended purpose. You need to use the title to raise the levels of characters in people's minds. And in Cena's case, its much like Flair. Raising him to have that monumental 16 reigns. Now, do I think Cena should break that number? Absolutely not. It degrades Flair's legacy. But I also think they are setting Cena up to NOT carry the title for a while and let him just roll with his character. As you said, much like Rock, Austin, or Taker. But...that entire storyline to unify never would have worked without Cena. He IS the man, like it or not. No one would have bought an Orton/Del Rio unification. Even Punk or Bryan. They are over, but not THAT guy...yet.
    Now, a nice little injection for future defense toward people backing Cena in the original post notwithstanding, call me a baby if you'd like. For the record I'm 35, have 2 kids who LOVE Cena, and 180 IQ. I heard way worse in the military than most people can dole out. So feel free to call me what you'd like. Cena did deserve the title. He always deserves a run at it. Thats the perk for being THAT guy. Same as if HBK, Taker, Austin, or as we saw, The Rock take a run at it. They can, damned near whenever they want because they...EARNED it. Through a career of becoming THOSE guys. None of them really need to prove they are worthy with a single match. They did it with 10,15,20 years of matches.
    Look, I'm not saying the guy should be in every title hunt. At this point he has no reason to be other than to pad that stat. But you can't say he doesnt deserve to be. He is one of the main reasons Kids watch wrestling, mine included. Look in the crowd at all those kids wearing his gear. He is who he is as a character to he aimed at them, with just enough edge that grown men don't rush the ring on a nightly basis to tear his arms off out of sheer aggravation.
    Cena is and will be this generation's Hogan until the day he retires. And I feel that much like Hogan, people wont fully appreciate everything he did as a performer until he's gone. I remember people hating Hogan for the same reason in the late 80's/early 90's. And yes, some still hate the guy. But, if he came to the WWE, he could make a rum at the title and people would in a weird way accept it. Oh, the internet would melt. But the casuals would cheer cause why? He earned that right. I dont want to see a 60-some year old guy as tue champ, but I'd get his ability to walk in and do it.
    Last edited by StunVKMcmahon; 12-19-2013 at 10:01 AM.
    [I]
    Taker, one of the greatest Legends in History
    Forever A Warrior
    Shout out to Bender for the Sig.

  7. #7
    Resident Jackass StunVKMcmahon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    South Jersey
    Age
    36
    Posts
    782

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    Man, i really need to type these long posts on my PC. Doing it on my phone makes a ridiculous amount of typos. Lol.
    [I]
    Taker, one of the greatest Legends in History
    Forever A Warrior
    Shout out to Bender for the Sig.

  8. #8
    Childlike Wonder Djm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    192.168.1.100
    Posts
    12,662

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    And can I just say one other thing? This whole "it's a prop" thing that Cornette and a lot of his supporters keep saying killed the importance of the title. Here's the thing.

    The belt has always been a prop. Professional wrestling was a fake sport with belts that don't really mean anything looooong before Vince Russo opted to choose to not look at his audience like 5-year olds. Looong before he actually said it in a shoot interview, people in the business like Jim Cornette said the same damn thing about every title there has ever been.

    It IS a prop. It always has been a prop. And now, that's just a talking point for one side or the other.

    It all comes down to how important you make the prop appear to be.

    The Money In The Bank briefcase is a prop. It's a pretty damn important one because WWE would tell us how nearly every person that would cash in would win! The WWE Title is a prop. It's a damn important one because WWE released a book on it documenting its history over 5 fucking decades, and it is almost always the focal point of the most important thing on WWE television.

    The US Title is a prop, but is it that important? Not really. Why, because WWE isn't telling us that it is beyond saying "Oh, yeah. Dean Ambrose has that."

    All the titles are props. It's a TV show. Props are a thing. So stop it. Jim Cornette still sounds as dated as ever. He doesn't know whether he wants pro wrestling to just be completely removed from all of its conventions, or he just wishes everyone still thought it was STILL REAL TO ME, DAMMIT!

    Which it never was.
    Last edited by Djm; 12-19-2013 at 01:35 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Champ View Post
    I'll be honest, I'll probably chant CM Punk in Brooklyn again.

    I'm a follower.

  9. #9
    An AJPW Guy Emperor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    England
    Age
    25
    Posts
    8,853

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    You're right, but as far as the use of the word 'prop' goes, we're just arguing semantics.

    When I said the WWE Championship is a prop, I meant that it isn't an accurate representation of the (kayfabe) best wrestler in the company. Not even close. Although WWE is scripted, even in its own universe, its top champion is often not the best wrestler in the company because of things like Money In The Bank.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor View Post
    You're right, but as far as the use of the word 'prop' goes, we're just arguing semantics.

    When I said the WWE Championship is a prop, I meant that it isn't an accurate representation of the (kayfabe) best wrestler in the company. Not even close. Although WWE is scripted, even in its own universe, its top champion is often not the best wrestler in the company because of things like Money In The Bank.
    Nor is the Championship always an accurate representation of the most recognizable wrestler in the company.

  11. #11
    Childlike Wonder Djm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    192.168.1.100
    Posts
    12,662

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor View Post
    You're right, but as far as the use of the word 'prop' goes, we're just arguing semantics.

    When I said the WWE Championship is a prop, I meant that it isn't an accurate representation of the (kayfabe) best wrestler in the company. Not even close. Although WWE is scripted, even in its own universe, its top champion is often not the best wrestler in the company because of things like Money In The Bank.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Buck 3 Stud View Post
    Nor is the Championship always an accurate representation of the most recognizable wrestler in the company.
    By the logic of each of these, no 9-7 Wild Card team should ever win the Super Bowl...and that has happened. No 8 seed should win the Stanley Cup, and that has happened.

    Or, the NFL MVP should be Tom Brady or Peyton Manning every year, but that's not always the case.

    The championship, even a predetermined sport, can be as much a result of circumstance as a championship in an actual sport. Money In The Bank is a plot device that facilitates that. To that effect, if the Champion IS the best wrestler in the company, he should be able to overcome such an obstacle, should they not?
    Quote Originally Posted by The Champ View Post
    I'll be honest, I'll probably chant CM Punk in Brooklyn again.

    I'm a follower.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Bang Bang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,081

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    I agree with Cornette's emphasis on the lack of importance attached to the prop. I think everyone gets its a prop. But why have said prop which is supposed to signify importance when, until recently, it hasn't been made to look important in a long time, unless Cena has it.

    I also don't want to hear the excuse of the guy makes the title. That is bullshit. The guy can't make the title when he is curtain jerking Elimination Chamber as the WWE champ. That in and of itself screams this prop is not important. If the titles were actually used how they are supposed to be used, like props are supposed to be used. I think a lot people would be happier because stories would make more sense.

    Two guys are battling it out for the belt that says they are the best. Not best at selling merch to kids, best at being a wrestler (kayfabe). Cue the bad guy to devise a way to take the title because he thinks he is best or Cue the monster bad guy that wrecks shop on everyone only to be beaten by the real champion, a good guy that can overcome the monster (doesn't always have to be the same guy, Cena). Stop with the nonsense non title losses, stop with not defending a title at a PPV for multiple PPVs in a row, etc. Its simple things like that which would make this prop so much better than it currently is.

    Showcase your champions, don't make them look like shit



    “I am not threatened by any man whose name is three letters.”

    - Damien Sandow
    in response to RVD's return

  13. #13
    Resident Jackass StunVKMcmahon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    South Jersey
    Age
    36
    Posts
    782

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    1 name Muhammad Ali. Bestof all time? He didnt always have the belt. It isnt soley indicative of who the best is, just who is the "best"at that very moment because of one match.
    [I]
    Taker, one of the greatest Legends in History
    Forever A Warrior
    Shout out to Bender for the Sig.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Bang Bang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,081

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    Had Ali not been kicked out of boxing in his prime he more than likely would have been involved in the title scene the entire time. He had to fight his way back up to the title after his hiatus. Also even when he was fighting Frazier on his way to Foreman it was trash talk about who should be champion. The title was the top of the mountain and Ali made sure everyone knew he deserved it. The point I'm trying to make is just restore importance to titles.



    “I am not threatened by any man whose name is three letters.”

    - Damien Sandow
    in response to RVD's return

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    116

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bang Bang View Post
    Two guys are battling it out for the belt that says they are the best. Not best at selling merch to kids, best at being a wrestler (kayfabe).
    Maybe. If, for the sake of the discussion, the WWE Universe (Read: Vince) decides that the two best guys are Cena/Orton, which appears to be the case anyway, then under your scenario, they would be slugging it out on every PPV for as long as the writers could come up with stories, or rather, variations of a single story.

    How many PPV's per year are there these days? 12? 15? Who is going to buy every one if the pre-determined "top two" headline EVERY PPV, and maybe swap jobs one in a while?

    Perhaps if there was just the Big 4, and not a PPV every three weeks or so, which requires the belt to be on the line, it could happen that the two stars could continue to entertain for a year or more, But nobody is going to buy 12 PPV's in a row where it is Cena/Orton slugging it out in the ME for every one of them, without extremely good writing, and this is where I believe the present WWE Creative has failed.

    They don't write stories any more. They don't write for the midcard which is for the most part rudderless, and just random matches thrown together on a week to week basis to fill up three hours. Everything has to be about the ME at the next PPV, which is never more than 4 weeks away. There can no longer be slow build ups such as the Kane/X-Pac split, or the Edge/Christian feud. both which took many months of tease and slow building.

    Maybe instant gratification is essential these days, but I doubt it. You could still have season long story arcs, with a slow build and side issues in between, for the entire card if you try. But for now, RAW seems to be nothing more than the first segment, the last segment, filler stuff in between, and promos for the next PPV.. It's turned into a 3 Hour ad.

    Norm

  16. #16
    Resident Jackass StunVKMcmahon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    South Jersey
    Age
    36
    Posts
    782

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    Sigh. The point remains quite valid although I can't rewrite history. But the glaring difference is in this business, you at any one time want 4,5,6,10 possible contenders. They need something to do when they arent 'in the hunt'. But people know who those top guys are because THEY created them. Oh sure, WWE booked and pushed them. But it's the fans who ultimately decide who they get behind and fall out of favor with. Skill is a part. Look is a part. But its showmanship. This is the circus. Vince has a predilection towards saying it himself. The belt is a way to show who the main attraction is at that given moment. And in every circus you gotta have a few clowns(Doink, Santino). You think if Ali looked like he was a halg quasimoto it would have mattered? Hell no. His job was to heat people up. These guys are highly skilled acrobats who also are in amazing shape AND have to be a great actor on top of it. The belt doesnt always signify who has all those things, but the top guys all do. We make them. Not the belt. The belt is a prop. But a damned important one to show who is 'leading the circus' today. But that doesn't mean all those people of Legend status don't have the right to run at it whenever they damned well please.
    And sometimes who holds the belts is only as important as the storyline requires. Like if HHH took the belt only to drop it to DB to signify how important he is to the future.
    [I]
    Taker, one of the greatest Legends in History
    Forever A Warrior
    Shout out to Bender for the Sig.

  17. #17
    The Last Sitting Duck Push's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ireland
    Age
    28
    Posts
    851

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    Cornette is wrong. I disagree and I completely agree with DJM.

    The title is clearly a prop. It's a prop that informs the audience which wrestler is supposedly the best in the business and the king of the mountain. It should never be treated as a prize. If that was the case, then we'd never have heel champions, we'd never have had Andre in the main event, we'd never have seen a small wrestler like HBK rise to the top. Hell, Austin and Rock would never have been champions because Bret and Angle are far better technical wrestlers.

    Here's a secret... wrestling is a drama. It's a soap opera and it works like any other fictional stage production.

    The only problem Cornette has is that he feels the writing is no longer sustaining the fictional important of the title. Well unfortunately for the WWE they are now competing in a world where the audience demands far more from its storylines and plots than it did during Cornettes days. The business has changed.
    Bring back the fourth wall

  18. #18
    Senior Member Bang Bang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,081

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    Quote Originally Posted by StunVKMcmahon View Post
    We make them. Not the belt.
    We made them in the past. we don't make them in the here and now. Just ask all the guys who were over and had all their momentum halted due to the way Vince handles their characters. They weren't halted due to poor performance they were halted because "well I'm the boss and I don't like it so it is stopping" even though arena's are chanting said performers name as if they were a big deal. You're confusing me talking about how they handle talent and tell stories with how good someone is in real life. They can rotate a handful of top guys, They can rotate another handful of other guys around the other titles. they don't do that. They pump and dump all but maybe 4-5 guys on the entire roster. We can have a prop that means something if its booked right



    “I am not threatened by any man whose name is three letters.”

    - Damien Sandow
    in response to RVD's return

  19. #19
    Resident Jackass StunVKMcmahon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    South Jersey
    Age
    36
    Posts
    782

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    Well. Hang tight a second. In my real life I've seen many really talented people get fired over a disagreement with their boss, my father included. But that's speaking in the general sense. Vince is a businessman. If people are buying tons of a guy's product, they make him money. And he cannot ignore that. But...if they are a pain in his ass and they make him mediocre money or are a mediocre draw, there is no reason that as an employer he needs to keep them. This is the HUGE difference between real titles and wrestling. This is an entertainment business. But you Can't tell me that just cause Roger Goodell gets mad at someone in the Broncos Organization the team can't play football for him any longer.Different worlds. Again, a referencing point, to every point there is an argument.I get it. Generality. Sports vs entertainment
    [I]
    Taker, one of the greatest Legends in History
    Forever A Warrior
    Shout out to Bender for the Sig.

  20. #20
    STL Cards: 90-72 :) SM(Stardust)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Age
    27
    Posts
    17,681

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    Yeah, I disagree with Cornette and agree with everything DJM is saying.

    The belt is a prop....always has been and always will be. The biggest names are not always holding the title and shouldn't always be. If that was was the case only probably Cena, and maybe Punk would be WWE Champ. For example, Bryan would not have won at Summerslam if only the top wrestler can hold the title.

    Also, I hate the MITB, but it didn't make the title mean any less when someone used it to become champ. Why? Because, the WHC already was 2nd fiddle to the WWE Title and that was never going to change. At the same time, the WWE Title, no matter what, will always be the top title in wrestling & will always be meaningful.

    surrender

  21. #21
    An AJPW Guy Emperor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    England
    Age
    25
    Posts
    8,853

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    Quote Originally Posted by Djm View Post
    By the logic of each of these, no 9-7 Wild Card team should ever win the Super Bowl...and that has happened. No 8 seed should win the Stanley Cup, and that has happened.

    Or, the NFL MVP should be Tom Brady or Peyton Manning every year, but that's not always the case.

    The championship, even a predetermined sport, can be as much a result of circumstance as a championship in an actual sport. Money In The Bank is a plot device that facilitates that. To that effect, if the Champion IS the best wrestler in the company, he should be able to overcome such an obstacle, should they not?
    I'm not really sure one can compare things like the Super Bowl to WWE. I can't say I know the exact mechanics of the Super Bowl, as in how the two competing teams are determined, but I say they can't be compared because the Super Bowl is contested once a year. Meanwhile the WWE Championship is defended on at least a monthly basis, against a challenger who has somehow earned the right to fight to be the best. Thus, the WWE Champion must prove himself by defending against all comers on a regular basis. In theory, more often than not, he will win.

    I agree with your bolded statement, that sometimes the World Title will end up in the hands of an "inferior" wrestler by circumstance. It could be by fluke, by screwjob, by bending the rules, whatever. In the latter two cases, this is the core of how the vast majority of heels over the years have gotten their heat. They are clearly not portrayed as the best wrestler as they have to rely on nefarious tactics to win, yet they hold the thing that says they are the best and boast about it, to the ire of the audience.

    This comparison to actual sports is interesting, because it's the reason why I dislike MITB, and it's the reason why I think MITB significantly devalues the title. If we compare the usual way of cashing in MITB to the Superbowl, it would be like football team A waiting until the players of football team B get blind drunk at some team party, and demanding that the Superbowl match be played at that exact moment in time. One could argue that the MITB is a simple extension of heels cheating, but I don't think that's the case. It's a way of winning the title in a completely nonsensical way that was created and endorsed by the very institution!

    I'm beginning to lose the thread of my post now. I guess my overall point is that as the WWE Title is defended on a regular basis, in theory the cream will rise to the top very quickly and, for the most part, stay at the top. That sums up my traditionality Cornette-esque view on how pro-wrestling "should" be. And I suppose this does happen in WWE, so I'm not even sure what my problem is. Money In The Bank. That's my problem, and that's my opinion

    Quote Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
    Maybe. If, for the sake of the discussion, the WWE Universe (Read: Vince) decides that the two best guys are Cena/Orton, which appears to be the case anyway, then under your scenario, they would be slugging it out on every PPV for as long as the writers could come up with stories, or rather, variations of a single story.

    How many PPV's per year are there these days? 12? 15? Who is going to buy every one if the pre-determined "top two" headline EVERY PPV, and maybe swap jobs one in a while?
    You are taking his point to a rather silly extreme. What generally happens is that the two best guys fight it out, and the loser moves to the back of the line and the next best guy steps in. Of course, with the WWE having so many PPVs, they like to drag feuds out by throwing a bunch of non-finishes in there to justify rematches.

    But with the rematch clause WWE has, I suppose the following could happen: Cena beats Orton(c) in December. Orton uses his rematch clause in January and beats Cena to get back the title at the next PPV. Cena gets his contracted rematch at the February PPV and wins, repeat ad infinitum. This is why I don't like the rematch clause from a conceptual standpoint.

    This is a remarkably abstract and perhaps unnecessarily pedantic discussion of professional wrestling

    Quote Originally Posted by SM View Post
    The belt is a prop....always has been and always will be. The biggest names are not always holding the title and shouldn't always be. If that was was the case only probably Cena, and maybe Punk would be WWE Champ. For example, Bryan would not have won at Summerslam if only the top wrestler can hold the title.
    Daniel Bryan defeated John Cena in a wrestling match, therefore he is a superior wrestler to Cena, or at least was on that one night. Therefore Daniel Bryan should definitely be holding the title in that circumstance. Note that when I say the best wrestler should hold the title, I mean the best wrestler in kayfabe.

  22. #22
    The Conquerer Slushy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,738

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    I wish people would quit using "prop". Its disrespectful and no better than throwing "fake" around.
    It's showtime, folks!

  23. #23
    Resident Jackass StunVKMcmahon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    South Jersey
    Age
    36
    Posts
    782

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    But it is fake. It isn't disrepectful, it's the truth. Doesnt make it less entertaining or disregard everything it takes to be a superstar. Forrest Gump isn't real, but T9m,Hanks was awesome as him.
    [I]
    Taker, one of the greatest Legends in History
    Forever A Warrior
    Shout out to Bender for the Sig.

  24. #24
    STL Cards: 90-72 :) SM(Stardust)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Age
    27
    Posts
    17,681

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor View Post
    Daniel Bryan defeated John Cena in a wrestling match, therefore he is a superior wrestler to Cena, or at least was on that one night. Therefore Daniel Bryan should definitely be holding the title in that circumstance. Note that when I say the best wrestler should hold the title, I mean the best wrestler in kayfabe.
    If we are going by kayfabe, Bryan didn't really earn his shot as Cena just handed it to him. Atleast with MITB, they earn there shot at the title.

    surrender

  25. #25
    Resident Jackass StunVKMcmahon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    South Jersey
    Age
    36
    Posts
    782

    Default Re: Do you agree or disagree with Jim Cornette on the topic of the title Unification?

    I feel like I'm insane. I'm kinda Shocked this argument has gone on this long and that I am actively arguing about wrestling not being real. Someone pimpslap me please.
    [I]
    Taker, one of the greatest Legends in History
    Forever A Warrior
    Shout out to Bender for the Sig.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •