Kane Knight |
02-01-2009 12:35 PM |
Another thing I was kind of thinking of in terms of "canon" is the official value of titles and specific wins. Like the recent example that they were making a big deal about CM Punk's Triple Crown success. Which is nice, but before him, I can't even remember the last time a triple crown champion was mentioned on TV. With a relatively small number of wrestlers and a large number of accolades (The MITB/Jericho thing from another thread is what prompted me to post this in the first place), it seems like a lot of the big deals that once happened are now diminishing. And with so many of the wrestlers being established talent who have won a lot of titles, or won the Rumble, or whatever, it almost seems like everyone on the roster is "special," though it only matters if the commentary specifically states it.
There are more Triple Crown champs in the last 9 nears than in the 2 decades before, with around ten more in striking distance (2 applicable titles). Doing BDC's meth, that's about 20% of the current roster who could be, on top of roughly 34% who are former world champions (counting the ECW title). Punk's still in a small group, and being the youngest is still going to be a feather in the cap, but right now, there's a glut of accolades and former champs and all sorts of specifics, so they almost HAVE to ignore them until they decide to bring them up.
Championship prestige--Canon or no?
|