Agree or Disagree with the following statements?

[Casey Jones]

1) Bret Hart will mainly be remembered for Montreal...thanks for his own lack of willingness to let go of the past.

2) Stone Cold Steve Austin is greater than Hulk Hogan from both a wrestling and sports-entertainment perspective.

3) Kurt Angle was the greatest wrestler of all-time in the WWE.

4) If there are less titles in the WWE, the titles themselves will mean more.

5) The winner of the royal rumble should become world champion of his brand and also headline Wrestlemania....against the world champion of the other brand. No titles would be on the line for that match, but the winner would receive some kind of trophy or prize. By having a format like this, the WWE can have one clear cut main-event match and champion of Wrestlemania.

[.44 Magdalene]

1) Bret Hart will mainly be remembered for Montreal...thanks for his own lack of willingness to let go of the past.

You'd be amazed how many marks don't even know what happened in Montreal. My little brother knows Bret from his WCW tenure, and for being Owen's brother, for example. I think Bret'll be known for Montreal among smarks, but how much does that count for? I guess I'll disagree to a point.

2) Stone Cold Steve Austin is greater than Hulk Hogan from both a wrestling and sports-entertainment perspective.

Agree, but I'm biased.

3) Kurt Angle was the greatest wrestler of all-time in the WWE.

Disagree. Shawn Michaels. Next.

4) If there are less titles in the WWE, the titles themselves will mean more.

Not really. WWE would still have to book the titles worth a damn, and they're bound to fuck that up no matter how many or few belts are actually floating around.

5) The winner of the royal rumble should become world champion of his brand and also headline Wrestlemania....against the world champion of the other brand. No titles would be on the line for that match, but the winner would receive some kind of trophy or prize. By having a format like this, the WWE can have one clear cut main-event match and champion of Wrestlemania.

Uhhhhhh. No thanks.

[The Gold Standard]

1) Bret Hart will mainly be remembered for Montreal...thanks for his own lack of willingness to let go of the past.

2) Stone Cold Steve Austin is greater than Hulk Hogan from both a wrestling and sports-entertainment perspective.

3) Kurt Angle was the greatest wrestler of all-time in the WWE.

4) If there are less titles in the WWE, the titles themselves will mean more.

5) The winner of the royal rumble should become world champion of his brand and also headline Wrestlemania....against the world champion of the other brand. No titles would be on the line for that match, but the winner would receive some kind of trophy or prize. By having a format like this, the WWE can have one clear cut main-event match and champion of Wrestlemania.

1) As terrible as it is, he will always be remembered for it

2) No, Hogan proved he can get rtings even out of wrestling and if it weren't for him, I don't think Austin would have been a huge wrestling star because Hogan made wrestling/sports entertainment what it is today

3) Well in WWE, yes, but WWF/WWE Bret Hart

4) No, look at the TNA titles, they are worthless and there are only 3

5) I don't mind the trophy aspect, but not the rest

[James Steele]

1) Bret Hart will mainly be remembered for Montreal...thanks for his own lack of willingness to let go of the past.

2) Stone Cold Steve Austin is greater than Hulk Hogan from both a wrestling and sports-entertainment perspective.

3) Kurt Angle was the greatest wrestler of all-time in the WWE.

4) If there are less titles in the WWE, the titles themselves will mean more.

5) The winner of the royal rumble should become world champion of his brand and also headline Wrestlemania....against the world champion of the other brand. No titles would be on the line for that match, but the winner would receive some kind of trophy or prize. By having a format like this, the WWE can have one clear cut main-event match and champion of Wrestlemania.

1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) No, Shawn Michaels will hold the title.
4) No.
5) Shut up, you ignorant ass!

[ozzman6669]

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) No, Shawn Michaels is the greatest
4) No
5) No

[#1-norm-fan]

1) Unfortunately, agreed

2) Agree


3) No, Shawn Michaels is the greatest


4) Agree

5) Disagree

[Rammsteinmad]

1. Disagree, though it'll always be there along with his wrestling accolades.

2. Agree.

3. Disagree BUT it could be argued.

4. Agree. Half of 'em are always left off PPV's because there's so many.

5. Disagree.

[A7X]

TNA has 5 Titles. Granted none of them mean shit.

[redoneja]

Disagree with all.

[SammyG]

How was Austin better than Hogan come on don't be gay

[The Optimist]

1. Nope. That's like saying JFK will be remembered only for the Zapruder Film.
2. Mmhpm.
3. Ric Flair. Shawn Michaels is also acceptable.
4. Only by a little bit.
5. What? No.

[Casey Jones]

How was Austin better than Hogan come on don't be gay

I'm not arguing one over the other. I merely presented a statement...to which you can agree or disagree with. I would hope that you would present reasons as to WHY you feel that Hogan was better than Austin...as opposed to your half-witt response.

[The Optimist]

Better matches. Lol.

[Mr. Nerfect]

1) No. I think enough people remember Bret Hart for being a great technical wrestler, and perhaps being the most successful wrestler's wrestler up to that point in time. Montreal is just a notable event in the man's career.

2) Yes, Stone Cold Steve Austin is just more entertaining in general. If you could give me either Austin or Hogan in their prime back, I'd go with Austin.

3) Hmm, this is a tricky one. If we are speaking purely on ability, than I cannot see why not. If you want to judge by who has the biggest library of great matches, who had the best career, etc. -- well, it becomes a lot harder. It could be argued, for sure.

4) Yes, but not directly. Having less titles would mean that the WWE would care a little bit more who held them, and the champions would get a lot more attention and exposure. Some people can't even remember who the current champions are.

5) Um, no. I'm all for the Royal Rumble Winner challenging the champion of their choice at WrestleMania, and that match guaranteed the closing spot of Mania.

[Nicky Fives]

1. Yes (Unfortunately)
2. Yes (by a mile and a half)
3. No (Shawn Michaels)
4. Yes (2 women's belts and no CW Title? wtf?)
5. No (keep everything about the Rumble the same)

[Mr. Nerfect]

To be honest, I don't like the way the Royal Rumble has become so...boring. It also seems that the Royal Rumble Winner never headlines anymore. Well, Orton broke that, but with two World Titles, it seems that one Royal Rumble just loses luster.

I'm not shitting over the Rumble, because it's always fun to a certain degree, and it's a staple of the WWE (it will not, nor should it ever leave), but I wouldn't leave it exactly the same. I think it could use some oomph back.

[Steveviscious89]

1. No.....surely it was one of those moments but Bret had so many good matches, plus it led to his debut into WCW. I'm inclined to think that Vince Russo might be remembered more for that among older wrestling fans..haha.

2. It is impossible to determine, because their tenures were separated by almost ten years. But keep this in mind; after Hulk went stale in the WWF, he was at least half responsible for bringing WCW to the number one spot, ten years after his glory days in the WWF.

3. He might be the greatest to date.....I haven't seen much bad from him at all.

4. Everyone will disagree with me on this, but I know enough to say that the credibilty of the titles is completely subjective.

5. The royal rumble should remain as it is.

[Kane Knight]

1) Bret Hart will mainly be remembered for Montreal...thanks for his own lack of willingness to let go of the past.

2) Stone Cold Steve Austin is greater than Hulk Hogan from both a wrestling and sports-entertainment perspective.

3) Kurt Angle was the greatest wrestler of all-time in the WWE.

4) If there are less titles in the WWE, the titles themselves will mean more.

5) The winner of the royal rumble should become world champion of his brand and also headline Wrestlemania....against the world champion of the other brand. No titles would be on the line for that match, but the winner would receive some kind of trophy or prize. By having a format like this, the WWE can have one clear cut main-event match and champion of Wrestlemania.

1. the only people who even seem to care aabout Montreal are smarktards who either suck off Michaels or suck off Bret. Oh, and Canada, but nobody gives a fuck about Canada.

2. True.

3. On what terms?

4. It's not the number of titles that make them valuable. they could have 94256157345 titles, and good booking would make them significant.

With one title, bad booking could still utterly ruin it.

5. God no.

[V]

wtf @ #5, that is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard suggested about both the royal rumble and wrestlemania

[Casey Jones]

wtf @ #5, that is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard suggested about both the royal rumble and wrestlemania

The principle behind this idea was that it would give the WWE a clear-cut main-event for Wrestlemania...pitting the World champion of RAW against the world champion of Smackdown. An extension to this idea would be that the winner of the Royal Rumble would be the special guest referee in the world title match at February PPV.

Basically - it allows for the WWE to have a clear cut #1 guy of the company for that given year. I think having a #1 guy for the company is extremely crucial.

[TheCreepingDeath]

1) Bret Hart will mainly be remembered for Montreal...thanks for his own lack of willingness to let go of the past.

2) Stone Cold Steve Austin is greater than Hulk Hogan from both a wrestling and sports-entertainment perspective.

3) Kurt Angle was the greatest wrestler of all-time in the WWE.

4) If there are less titles in the WWE, the titles themselves will mean more.

5) The winner of the royal rumble should become world champion of his brand and also headline Wrestlemania....against the world champion of the other brand. No titles would be on the line for that match, but the winner would receive some kind of trophy or prize. By having a format like this, the WWE can have one clear cut main-event match and champion of Wrestlemania.

1) By the younger crowd, certainly.

2) I agree, but I'm biased. :p

3) Ehhh, this is a bit more debatable. If we're talking about WWE work alone, you could make the argument for Shawn, too. If we're just talking about the best wrestler to ever be in the company, then Ric Flair may have some words for you.

4) It would depend on how the WWE would treat the titles. They can make all of the titles in the company meaningful NOW, if they really tried to do so. They just don't try.

5) No. Not really, no.

[Good Ol JG]

1. Pretty much what Kane Knight said...

2. From a wrestling standpoint? No question. From a sports-entertainment standpoint, I'd have to say Hogan. Love him or hate him, the man embodied sports entertainment and he had a hell of a long run at the top of the business during 2 boom eras. Austin did not have that long of a run, and a lot of factors go into both of those statements (Hogan being an asshole with creative control, Austin having injuries, etc). But, Hogan was the first sports-entertainer to really gain huge mainstream recognition, and Austin never got that type of recognition, even when he was on top.

3. Depends on your meaning. As a pure wrestler, from an amateur standpoint, unquestionably yes. As a professional wrestler, no. Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, or even Curt Hennig would get my vote (I don't mention Flair because his best stuff was in the Midsouth/NWA/WCW days).

4. I say yes. I agree with the statement that bad booking can make ruin any title, but I remember when I was younger and the WWE had 3 belts it seemed like they were bigger. There was 1 world champion and he was clear-cut the top guy in the company. The I.C. title was prestigious and considered to be the next level down, and the Tag Titles meant that tag team was unquestionably the best tag team. Now there are 3 world titles, 2 other titles, 2 divas titles, and one tag title (with 2 different belts). Too many titles for my liking.

5. Points for thinking outside the box, but it's a bad idea. If you're going to have 2 titles than having one championship decided by a Royal Rumble makes 1 title essentially meaningless, it's decided by a "chance" match (even though the outcome would be decided). And why would anyone care about being the champion of Wrestlemania when it only happens once a year while the titles are always around? I'm guessing you're using a sports league type of analogy here, with one clear champion from one brand facing one from another for the ultimate title at the "Superbowl" of wrestling shows. But the problem here is wrestling has no off season, so why would there be bragging rights when a title can still be won as early as the next night?

[dablackguy]

1) Bret Hart will mainly be remembered for Montreal...thanks for his own lack of willingness to let go of the past.

A: Half true. Bret will be remembered mostly for Montreal because it did (and represented) more for his career than anything he ever did in a ring

2) Stone Cold Steve Austin is greater than Hulk Hogan from both a wrestling and sports-entertainment perspective.

A: False. From a wrestling standpoint, yes. Now if Austin hadn't broken his neck, that could likely be a very different story.


3) Kurt Angle was the greatest wrestler of all-time in the WWE.

A: He may have been the greatest total athlete in WWE history (Has anyone else won gold medals?) but as the greatest wrestler, there's many who could offer legit claim to that. So false, only because of how debatable it is, I guess.


4) If there are less titles in the WWE, the titles themselves will mean more.


A: Yes, but you pretty much need all of the titles you have now unless you combine the brands.


5) The winner of the royal rumble should become world champion of his brand and also headline Wrestlemania....against the world champion of the other brand. No titles would be on the line for that match, but the winner would receive some kind of trophy or prize. By having a format like this, the WWE can have one clear cut main-event match and champion of Wrestlemania.

A: No. The system we have now isn't great, but there's isn't a much better option out there currently.

[Mooияakeя™]

1) Bret Hart will mainly be remembered for Montreal...thanks for his own lack of willingness to let go of the past.

No.

2) Stone Cold Steve Austin is greater than Hulk Hogan from both a wrestling and sports-entertainment perspective.

Yes.

3) Kurt Angle was the greatest wrestler of all-time in the WWE.

No.

4) If there are less titles in the WWE, the titles themselves will mean more.

No. 4(5) belts each brand would be fine (WWE/WORLD, IC/US, WOMENS, TAGs x2 - but need much bigger tag division really), bar ECW - which tbh, I don't get the use for now bar bringing young people in, which technically means that new ECW belt means fuck all, bar a "young person of the year" style award. The Slammy's mean more.

5) The winner of the royal rumble should become world champion of his brand and also headline Wrestlemania....against the world champion of the other brand. No titles would be on the line for that match, but the winner would receive some kind of trophy or prize. By having a format like this, the WWE can have one clear cut main-event match and champion of Wrestlemania.

No, maybe one year as a change, but no trophy, for "undisputed" status again... as i said, one year only and for some people dedicated to the company so it gives massive credibility. Say Michaels vs Taker II

[Mr. Nerfect]

The principle behind this idea was that it would give the WWE a clear-cut main-event for Wrestlemania...pitting the World champion of RAW against the world champion of Smackdown. An extension to this idea would be that the winner of the Royal Rumble would be the special guest referee in the world title match at February PPV.

Basically - it allows for the WWE to have a clear cut #1 guy of the company for that given year. I think having a #1 guy for the company is extremely crucial.

Except you have two, even three World Titles within the company. Having a clear-cut #1 guy would be fucking cool, but then you have to basically say "Hey, this show's champion is a fraud."

Also, WrestleMania is the biggest stage of them all -- if you don't do a title match there, then when the fuck are you going to do it?

[Casey Jones]

Having a clear-cut #1 guy would be fucking cool, but then you have to basically say "Hey, this show's champion is a fraud."



The WWE are pretty much doing that anyways. ECW is made to look clearly inferior to both RAW and Smackdown, while Smackdown is made to look clearly inferior to RAW.

Your whole argument is centered around the opinion that parity exists between the shows....when that's clearly not the case. You once again prove that you are a MEATHEAD.

You make it sound like one show would completely lose credibility if that show's representative lost the World title match at Mania.....and this would not be the case. If anything - the 'loser' of the match would have more potential feuds on his own brand, since everyone would want to kick his ass for making the show look inferior.

[.44 Magdalene]

I think reasoning out why the idea is stupid is more of a formality than anything, since everybody pretty well unanimously agrees that the idea is most definitely stupid.

[Mr. Nerfect]

The WWE are pretty much doing that anyways. ECW is made to look clearly inferior to both RAW and Smackdown, while Smackdown is made to look clearly inferior to RAW.

Your whole argument is centered around the opinion that parity exists between the shows....when that's clearly not the case. You once again prove that you are a MEATHEAD.

You make it sound like one show would completely lose credibility if that show's representative lost the World title match at Mania.....and this would not be the case. If anything - the 'loser' of the match would have more potential feuds on his own brand, since everyone would want to kick his ass for making the show look inferior.

No, everyone would want to go to the other show and win that World Title because the one they would be competing for under normal circumstances looks like shit.

Yes, the brands are not even. The ECW Championship exists in a fluctuating realm somewhere between World Title and US/IC Title level. But when it comes to the WWE Championship and World Heavyweight Championship, the WWE has actually tried to establish them pretty evenly.

The World Heavyweight Title has no real history to it, but has a damn nice belt design. The WWE Title is truly "the richest prize in the WWE," but looks like crap. The WHT started on the A-show, to give it an initial boost, while the WWE Title got the B-show, but at least got to headline WrestleMania. Hell, look at the Mania main events since the brand split:

WrestleMania XIX - WWE Title headlined
WrestleMania XX - World Heavyweight Title headlined
WrestleMania 21 - World Heavyweight Title headlined
Wrestlemania 22 - WWE Title headlined
WrestleMania 23 - WWE Title headlined
WrestleMania XXIV - World Heavyweight Title headlined
WrestleMania XXV - WWE Title headlined

The current score is 4-3 in favour of the WWE Title, which is not as great a slant as you'd think it would be. You've also had the World Heavyweight Champion win "Champion of Champions" matches in the past. Between those belts, I honestly don't know which one I would consider, in kayfabe, to mean the most right now.

To ruin that balance to make one champion look so much better over another? Foolish. I do not mind it when they do something like WWE Champion vs. World Heavyweight Champion vs. ECW Champion at Night of Champions, to be honest. I think that it makes that event special, and with three guys in there, the variables allow the match to lose a little weight. But WrestleMania sets the tone for the entire year. You don't want that to be the tone you set for the entire year.

[taker707]

1) Bret Hart will mainly be remembered for Montreal...thanks for his own lack of willingness to let go of the past.

yes but i honestly still love the guy and would cum gallons if he showed up in TNA or WWE ever!!

2) Stone Cold Steve Austin is greater than Hulk Hogan from both a wrestling and sports-entertainment perspective.

unfortuantly no . Hogan will always be the man that made Sports-Entertainment.

3) Kurt Angle was the greatest wrestler of all-time in the WWE.

Wrestler maybe . Showman no!

4) If there are less titles in the WWE, the titles themselves will mean more.

Exactly!!!!

5) The winner of the royal rumble should become world champion of his brand and also headline Wrestlemania....against the world champion of the other brand. No titles would be on the line for that match, but the winner would receive some kind of trophy or prize. By having a format like this, the WWE can have one clear cut main-event match and champion of Wrestlemania.

No Bad idea

[Sovereigntywillpr]

They do need some sort of world series between the two main brands, maybe have a gimmick where the wrestlers wrestle a certain amount of matches each (some can be on house show and never have to happen if they're hurt) and basically but the end on TV as well as some of the matches, especially the few interbrand matches they can have as part of it... He doesn't need to be a champion , he can just go to Wrestmania and fight his Brands Counter part for a Cup or Trophee...

(Than Bad News Brown can win it and Bret can Break it...)

[midLfinger]

1) By some but definitely not all.

2) Austin is better in so many ways but he appealed to grown men whereas Hogan appealed to kids and represented a myth or a dream. He is synonymous with wrestling like Jordan to basketball, Babe Ruth to baseball or Ali to boxing. What he stands for is greater than I'm sure even he realizes and no one will ever take it from him. Austin is superior in almost every facet but one and that one is unable to ever be duplicated again. He is bigger because he was first. He is grander because he came at the right time. He is legend because he captured millions of imaginations in a way never captured before and ran with them.

If only he wasn't such a prick.

3) Kurt Angle is certainly up there but there's way too much to measure to make it clean cut. Shawn Michaels is such a perfect melding of all styles (ground work, brawling, high flying, technical). Ric Flair could wrestle in a phone booth and you'd be entertained and glued to the TV. Kurt Angle makes it look so real. Bret Hart makes art in the ring. They all have drawbacks. Shawn wouldn't job to Bret, Ric had a shitty match on purpose when he had to job to Bret, Kurt cannot carry the buildup to a match alone and Bret is greatly lacking in the personality department. All of this is part of wrestling.

4) Fewer titles alone wouldn't do it. It'd take booking and talent to put the titles on. Think about it. The Colons are the only tag champs. Who are they worried about losing them to? Crime Tyme? Even if there was only one women's champion would you give a rat's ass with the matches they've been having in that division?

5) No. I see what you're trying to do but if the real purpose is to win a trophy wouldn't that diminish the value of the titles (both of them)? Aren't you just creating another title that is over the two previous titles in essence making another tier?

I agree with having one solid #1 guy, though. How about the Rumble winner gets to face a champion of his choosing and the brand he doesn't choose has an elimination chamber match at No Way Out for the guy who'll face that brands champion at WrestleMania. Those matches will be first and second on the card. The winners face in the main event for the undisputed championship. The next night on Raw is the draft and the Undisputed Champion gets to choose his show and he gets that shows belt. The other title is decided in a tournament (KotR?).

[Not Booked]

1) Bret Hart will mainly be remembered for Montreal...thanks for his own lack of willingness to let go of the past.

On this forum, perhaps. To the to the vast majority of wrestling fans, definitely not.

2) Stone Cold Steve Austin is greater than Hulk Hogan from both a wrestling and sports-entertainment perspective.

Hulk Hogan made wrestling global. Stone Cold made it mainstream.

3) Kurt Angle was the greatest wrestler of all-time in the WWE.

Greatest amateur? Obviously. Greatest Pro-Wrestler? He's certainly up there with Bret, Benoit, Henning and the like. As a star I don't think he's in the same league as Austin, Rock, Bret, Hogan, Flair, Michaels, Undertaker, etc

4) If there are less titles in the WWE, the titles themselves will mean more.

Agreed, Wrestlemania 14 was a perfect example. Huge build to Austin challenging Shawn. Austin FINALLY wins the world title and he officially becomes the top guy.

5) The winner of the royal rumble should become world champion of his brand and also headline Wrestlemania....against the world champion of the other brand. No titles would be on the line for that match, but the winner would receive some kind of trophy or prize. By having a format like this, the WWE can have one clear cut main-event match and champion of Wrestlemania.

The WWE doesn't book from your armchair, so it's hard to say..