02-29-2016, 10:05 AM | #1 |
EATER OF HOT POCKETS
Posts: 14,340
|
Why Was This Idea Never Revisited???
In September of 1993, the WWF Intercontinental Championship was vacated after Shawn Michaels failed a drug test (the kayfabe reason had to do with failure to defend the title adequately or something.) A new champion was determined via a two-step process; first, a battle royal was held on Monday Night Rae, the two remaining participants of which would face each otheroom in a singles match on the following Raw to decide the new champion. The participants included the estsblished midcard of the day:
Mr. Perfect Diesel Giant Gonzalez Razor Ramon Bam Bam Bigelow Tatanka Superfly Jimmy Snuka Adam Bomb Marty Jannetty MVP (OK seriously wtf with this guy) Bastion Booger 1-2-3-Kid The Quebecers Owen Hart Bob Backlund I.R.S. Mabel Macho Man Randy Savage Rick Martel Largely a stacked match featuring 7 former and future IC champions and 3 former and future WWF champions. The last 2 men in the ring were veteran workhorse Rick Martel and promising up-and-comer Razor Ramon. The following week Razor defeated Martel to cement his rise in the WWF. Why did they never use this idea again? There have been plenty of vacated titles since then and I loved this setup when it took place. They've used battle royals to crown champions following vacated titles; they could have used this idea to determine contenders on Raw & have a title match on a PPV. Hell they could even have 2 battle royals on consecutive Raws to determine participants for a PPV match. Even given WWE's panicky desire to fill in this shit asap, you could open a Raw with the Battle Royal and have the last 2 guys close out the show. WHY WAS THIS IDEA NEVER REUSED??? |
02-29-2016, 01:02 PM | #2 |
In His hands...
Posts: 25,160
|
Creative would claim they are working in slave conditions if having to write for more than a handful of people?
|
02-29-2016, 01:31 PM | #3 |
Fire up Chips!
Posts: 27,456
|
My buddy theo, I completely agree and they should redo this idea. Maybe even call it the Bobby Jaggers memorial battle royal. RIP.
|
02-29-2016, 02:12 PM | #4 |
EATER OF HOT POCKETS
Posts: 14,340
|
I'd endure that without complaint to see them do this idea again.
|
02-29-2016, 02:27 PM | #5 |
b/c 5 is better than 4
Posts: 9,721
|
The two Battle Royal concept is intriguing.... one on Raw, one on Smackdown, match for the vacant title on the PPV.... Battle Royals can also be a great way to start/further/enhance already exisiting feuds as well, so not only do you give the crowd a Battle Royal (which always seem to be popular), you give the two winners the chance to be legitimate by having a win and both looking strong going into the PPV match, and you may also spark a few extra feuds along the way....
If they really wanted to go all out, they could even have a WWE.com vote from the first Battle Royal and ask who deserved a second chance, slotting them back into the second match (assuming that they would use different people in both matches, instead of just turning a 20-man into a 19-man) |
02-29-2016, 02:40 PM | #6 |
EATER OF HOT POCKETS
Posts: 14,340
|
The thing I like about what they did in 1993 was that it made the IC title look important. It was rather a matter of "we need to crown a new IC champion. We'll have a battle royal. But... you know, this is really too important to just have a battle royal... so we'Lloyd use the battle royal to figure out who the two best guys are, and THEN we can have the one-on-one." It lent a lot more gravity than the battle royals that were held for the WHChristmas years later. Angle's win was little more than a beefed up MitB cash-in, and Khali's win makes colons seize to this day.
|
02-29-2016, 02:43 PM | #7 |
wekasauce
Posts: 106,727
|
so you're tellin' me there's a chance
|
02-29-2016, 04:04 PM | #8 |
LIMITLESS
Posts: 32,273
|
This was one of my favorite angles as a kid.
|
02-29-2016, 04:12 PM | #9 |
It's a blood match!
Posts: 27,374
|
I agree it was a good angle.
|
02-29-2016, 09:16 PM | #10 |
You can't teach that
Posts: 19,337
|
honestly I think it's he idea of having two winners in a battle royale. They push it so hard as one man standing that having two standing at the end boggles their minds. Not defending it but that would make sense in their infinite weirdness.
Two battle royals is cool I guess, but each would be watered down and why not just make the winner champ why prolong it? |
03-01-2016, 10:35 AM | #11 |
Posts: 10,642
|
What if they had the initial battle royal, and the final two participants then enter into a sudden death, one fall to a finish singles match with no count outs? You still get the one on one match you're looking for but it's now at the end of the battle royal.
|
03-01-2016, 03:50 PM | #12 | |
Legit Jive Soul Bro
Posts: 372
|
Quote:
|
|
03-01-2016, 04:19 PM | #13 | |
You can't teach that
Posts: 19,337
|
Quote:
|
|
03-01-2016, 06:26 PM | #14 |
Posts: 10,642
|
Well I don't watch TNA, so there.
|
03-01-2016, 08:08 PM | #15 | |
MVP Mark
Posts: 16,447
|
Quote:
|
|
03-02-2016, 03:53 PM | #16 |
EATER OF HOT POCKETS
Posts: 14,340
|
I think when they did it in 1993 they figured they could get 2 main events out of it in one go, so why not? I did love how the end of the match had Razor & Martel looking like they wanted to go at it right away, with whoever was on commentary basically saying "no, not until next week! Don't miss it!"
|
03-05-2016, 07:24 AM | #17 | |
I W C DEEZ NUTZ!
Posts: 10,134
|
Quote:
|
|
03-05-2016, 08:26 PM | #18 |
LUV CABBAGE/H8 JEWS
Posts: 42,497
|
Pretty sure MVP was in prison in 1993.
|