Quote:
Originally Posted by Loose Cannon
I agree with you in a sense, but this is not the first time it's happened over the course of wrestling history. Like you mentioned, there are always going to be certian guys whose matches are seen as more important then the World title matches.
1990: Warriror was Champion, but Hulk's feud with Earthquake quickly became the focus.
1992: Bret was Champion, but his matches were second fiddle to the whole Warrior/Savage vs Flair thing for a bit.
Benoit played second fiddle a lot when he was champion.
And there's a ton of other cases I could go through.
Fact is when you have a "new" champion like Miz, he's not going to get the all mighty treatment. He just hasn't been around that long. Especially when you still have so many over guys this day and age. The WWE would rather have the guys that have "been there, done that" be the focal points of the show.
And that's fine by me as long as the champions are booked strong in thier feuds and matches.
|
Excellent point. But would you agree that throughout the majority of WWE history, the WWE Championship has been the focal point of the story line? Would you also agree that this is how it sould be? I mean there are some guys Austin, Hart, HBK, HHH... that will always be over weather they are champ or jobbing to Zack Gowen. That being said do you think that they should always get the glory of the spotlight?