Thread: I hate the IWC sometimes...
View Single Post
Old 09-09-2008, 01:49 PM   #26
Mr. Nerfect
 
Posts: 61,634
Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDaddyCool View Post
Noid, I'm going to be polite about this, because I'm trying something new.

CM Punk didn't loose the title in a test of skill, he was ready for the match, then he is attacked before the match. That sounds unlucky (unlucky is still luck). Then, instead of postoning the match or anything, they strip his title, which is retarded.

In any real sport, is a champion was attacked and unable to compete for the night, they would reschedule the match as long as the champion could defend his or her title within a certain time period. For exmaple, in boxing a champion has to defend their at least once every 180 days. So if something happened like, say someone came and beat the defending champion up right before the match and he was in no condition to defend his title, as long as there is plenty of time to reschedule the match and let him heal, they would simply postpone it.

Now, I know wrestling is fake, but they pretend to be real, so they should follow some sort of rule or else it doesn't make any sence. Now from what I understand, WWE has had a 90 day rule in the past, where a champion must defend his title ever 90 days, or he or she can be stripped of their title. CM Punk just defended his title at Summer Slam on 8/17/08, which was 21 days prior. Punk was attacked, thus unable to compete for the night. So he would have had 69 days to heal up and defend his title at a later date. Given the fact that Punk was just beat up, and from what I understand not seriously injured and looks like he will be competing soon, I thought I heard there is a cage match he is scheduled to be part of in the next few weeks. He could have easily come back and still defended his title in the time frame given. But no, they took the title off him with out him defending it. There for a victim of luck and circumstance.
I appreciate you being polite, but I think you are way out-dated with this. The 90-day rule has not existed since ever. Now, whenever a champion cannot make a defense of the title, he is stripped of the belt.

Why does the WWE do this? Because there are PPVs, promised matches and a responsibility to put on the best show possible to the fans. A wrestler who gets injured (especially near the top) might be out of luck, but it'd be foolish for a General Manager to cop-out on a big promised match-up.

Are you telling me that you honestly would not have complained if Mike Adamle had come out and said "Punk is injured, so this match you paid for isn't going to happen"? It's a storyline that needs something to happen.

I still don't get your luck and circumstance points. If you're talking kayfabe, Punk is a victim of Orton and gang. That is all. If you're talking as far as the backstage dealings of the business go, then Punk just got shifted out of the World Heavyweight Title scene for another major feud.

What you seem to be saying is that Punk was unlucky because a rule that hasn't existed in years wasn't upheld?
Mr. Nerfect is offline   Reply With Quote