Thread: WCW>WWE In terms of Titles Meaning Something....
View Single Post
Old 05-20-2006, 10:05 PM   #10
Xero
He's Here
 
Xero's Avatar
 
Posts: 60,735
Xero makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Xero makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Xero makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Xero makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Xero makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Xero makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Xero makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Xero makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Xero makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Xero makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Xero makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Xero makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Xero makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by M-A-G
OK, true, WWE did have Vince has champion but in comparison to WCW putting their world title on Arquette, there's a major difference. Vince did it just as an egofuck and IMMEDIATELY got rid of it to let the real wrestlers handle it plus it was during a really hot period for WWE. In WCW's case, they did it because they actually thought it was going to help get them some traction by having a celebrity wear their top prize and they had him actually making defenses on TV and at Slamboree in the main event no less. Plus it was during one of the worst slumps for WCW.
Don't forget the fact that, you know, Vince had wrestled in the past and had been a part of WWE TV for about 20 years at that time.

Vince winning made A LOT more sense than Arquette.
Xero is offline   Reply With Quote