Thread: WCW>WWE In terms of Titles Meaning Something....
View Single Post
Old 05-20-2006, 07:23 PM   #3
Rammsteinmad
TPWW's #3 Peep
 
Rammsteinmad's Avatar
 
Posts: 20,903
Rammsteinmad makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Rammsteinmad makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Rammsteinmad makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Rammsteinmad makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Rammsteinmad makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Rammsteinmad makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Rammsteinmad makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Rammsteinmad makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Rammsteinmad makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Rammsteinmad makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Rammsteinmad makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Rammsteinmad makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Rammsteinmad makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
I agree. Especially their mid-card titles.

BUT!!! One problem. Not gonna go into too much detail (We ALL know this by now), but for the World Title list. Look at the names. With the exception of Booker T and DDP they're all old name veterans. Sure some of 'em (Sting, Simmons etc) were winning them in 1990 etc, but where are the younger names from 1999/2000?

But I definately agree when it comes to the Midcard, Cruiserweight and Tag Titles.
Rammsteinmad is offline   Reply With Quote