What counts in wrestling, i.e. what is Canon?
 

Nothing is Canon, because in a few years they will just do something to change what happened.

Correct.

Also, you forgot Hogan slamming Andre.

Last week.

Was the recap involving Matt Hardy? If it was, i wouldn't count that as they were about to do a massive SWWWEEERRRVVVVEEE the week after.

I bet Matts not on ECW until after WM now.

Off the top of my head, I can remember Shane confirming that Kane once tombstoned Linda and hooked a car battery up to his testicles, and that was probably about 5 years ago now. That was still when Adamle was GM, but they still talk about him being GM so I guess that still happened.

Eric Bischoff was never GM of Raw, though...they haven't mentioned that recently.

Shane McMahon is the biggest threat to any wrestler ever.

I really don't understand this kind of mentality. Yeah, ECW is the least watched show, but that's WWE's fault. Also, you're argument troubles me because almost nothing that happens on Smackdown ever gets mentioned on Raw.

ECW gets mentioned on Smackdown, Raw gets mentioned on ECW and Smackdown, but neither ECW or Smackdown get mentioned on RAW.

No one seems to remember that Shane used to be Vince's arch enemy, and now he is so angered by an attack on Vince that he is in tears before beating their top guy down.

This is absurd.

Just an aside, how is it WWE's fault? People on here keep saying it's the best written, best booked, etc., of WWE's programs, so where's the problem, aside from it being on a network even Trekkies on marginally care about?

Anyway, it's not about being the least watched show. ECW is essentially Velocity/Heat and is treated with roughly the same level of "continuity" within the WWE "universe." I wouldn't be surprised to find they'd retuned wrestlers like they did with Velocity/Heat, either (Misterrrrrrrrr...ANDERSON!).

WWE ignores a lot that happens even on their flagship show, but that's at least kept as an integral part of the loops. It's no stretch to say "ECW; doesn't count."

It is definitely a stretch to say ECW doesn't count. For the record, they recapped ECW on SmackDOWN! when Swagger won the title just a few weeks ago. Anything televised counts. Seems pretty simple, really.

We both know that's not true.

ECW counts, god damn it.

This thread is retarded. That is all.

Also, how is calling ECW a 'glorified house show' not a knock on ECW? Just because you don't like ECW is no reason to say it doesn't count. It has its own roster, general manager, and champion. It counts, and you'd be absolutely silly to assume anything otherwise.

If ECW was NEVER mentioned outside of its own show, it's superstars weren't advertised as ECW superstars, and their title was never defended on PPV (it was even defended on RAW before when Kenny Dykstra challenged Bobby Lashley), then you MAY have a point. But none of those things happen.

House shows don't count unless mentioned. That's true. Same for the internet...but to put ECW in that category is...well, stupid, really.

Okay, ECW counts, but it's still pretty much a glorified VelociHeat. And it sucks, because that ECW Title is taking up card-room that should be given to the IC and US belts.

Were you saying that when the ECW title matches were CM Punk versus Elijah Burke or John Morrison? Even Hardy versus Swagger is a good match to me. Just because that title is on the card doesn't mean it's going to be a shitty match, and it also doesn't mean that something better would have replaced it. Maybe a Khali Kiss Cam or something.

And just because you go out of you way to fellate* everything doesn't lend validity to either the quality or status of the show or matches. It's not about quality, but treatment. Come now.

*You're the one who preaches it, brotha, not me.

The part that mandates an understanding of a line of thought that is not binary.

I'm not going out of my way at all here. ECW counts. Is that really such a ridiculous thing to say? You're not even quoting the post where I gave my reasons as to why. I agree, it's not about quality. But they DO acknowledge that it exists and that its results ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

I don't recall you saying you like ECW, nor does that matter. It still counts.

DVR

In the same sense they've acknowledged what happened on the web, house shows, and Heat/Velocity. You know, it counts when it's convenient.

Not really. It's part of PPVs and interpromotional storylines. This is really a pointless argument.

Thank you.

I STILL REMEMBER!

Because it's not canon.

Oh, yeah. I forgot.


G TV? Never heard of it.





IT'S STILL REAL TO ME DAMMIT!

They gave Gilberg his own show? Why don't I remember that?

Yeah, but pretty much any argument on an internet wrestling board is pointless. The more people who accept that, the better. None of us are going to affect policy by debating the merit of a wrestler or storyline. People bitching about Cena? Pointless.

Now that we've gotten the commentary out of the way, it's not really any more pointless than the usual range of discussion and commentary that goes on here. It's simply an example of wrestling as a form of fiction.

ECW is part of interpromotional storylines primarily because of the other promotion. ECW's inclusion in PPVs kind of has its origins in a band-aid solution.

It has a title too. Title histories help 'canon', because they're recorded, referenced, and chart history.

That's really all I'm gonna throw out there. I can't really be bothered, but I think it clearly is.

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?