Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The CyNick
What I mean with SS 02 is that the promotion of the PPV was based on Brock and Rock doing those workout vignettes and saying these two guys are fighting for the Undisputed Championship. The fact that they had some really strong matches on that show had nothing to do with how many people ordered the show. And in terms of ratings between then and now, thats not really the point, because the PPVs directly after SS 02 had a big drop and they have been doing about the same numbers since then.
I totally agree that if Hunter were to hold guys down thats going to be a problem, but that irrelevant to this discussion. I mean I could argue having two separate champs is bad because Scott Stiener could hold one title and A-Train could hold the other. That would be bad, but we have to stick to the topic. Again, I agree HHH holding people back is bad, but thats besides the point.
SD last week didn't have Brock on the show, and I thought it was a pretty solid show. Again, the key is to build up the secondary titles to a point where the guys holding them are main eventers on their own. I mean for me, and this is just my opinion the RAW title has no value to me. It wasn't won in any sort of competition and there was no angle to strip Brock of half of the Undisputed title. So to me its about as meaningful as the Million $ title from back in the day. So in my view RAW hasn't had a World Title since the last time Rock was there when he was champ in 2002. But even with that in mind, RAW has still had some good shows since that time. So I dont think a lack of a World Champ for a month is going to hurt a show, so long as the secondary title holders have been built up to a level where they can carry the show. It would be kinda like in ECW where they had RVD as TV champ, but he was more over, and worked more main events than Taz or anyone else who was the World Champion.
|
My point for SS02 was that even with the great build up and anticipation for the Brock/Rock match, the rest of the card was looking great too. Just by looking at the card you knew the PPV was gonna be good. People were looking forward to HBK/HHH just as much as they were the title match. And HBK/HHH was promoted just as heavily as well. And obviously the WWE delivered with a solid PPV. IMO there has been hardly any PPV's that have even stood a chance when stacked against a card like SS02 had.
To be honest, I think that you are thinking too much like a "smart mark" in this situation. I think that the common fan (mark or whatever you wanna call it) will look at a show without a champion for a whole month, and wonder "WTF?" I don't think most fans will be as interested in a show that is focusing on someone who isn't the #1 guy. House shows and other events that are promoted without a champion aren't going to be as appealing. Now you point out ECW, but surely you can agree that ECW fans are a totally different group than the WWE tries to bring in. IMO most fans will not accept a show without that show's particular champion.
As for Brock not being on Smackdown, I didn't like it. He should've been used to build up the fued with Holly, (preferably by beating the shit out of him) and possibly even to get more heat between him and Benoit (which I hope happens at WMXX) The main event of Smackdown was very weak IMO. While Los Guerreros vs. WGTT is always a good match, we have seen it SOOOO many times that it is not worthy of being the main event. And the ending with Tazz and Cole talking about Kurt and Eddie backstage was just very anticlimatic and boring IMO. The ending didn't have to necessarily be something to do with Brock, but I didn't like the way this week's went down.
But you're right that fans weren't into the two titles at first, and with the way it was "given" to HHH, who can blame them. But it's too late to do anything about that. And whether you think the RAW title has meaning or not, there is still a person on the RAW roster that is their champion only. The wrestlers on RAW have a top spot that they can try to acheive. After a year and a half almost, I think the fact that the title wasn't originally won in a contest of some sort is kinda irrelevent.
I wasn't saying that HHH will ruin the title even if he is the only champ. I am saying that if the WWE can make two world titles credible if they do a better job of booking the champ, and the main eventers who are challenging for each title. I don't think that that statement was irrelevent. If the rosters are to be completely divided, then each show should have their exclusive champ.
You compare WWE to something like NFL, where the different divisions meet at the end for the championship. But being the SuperBowl champs isn't something that a team is going to defend on the next PPV within a months time. SuperBowl is a one time thing. SuperBowl champions are always going to be the defending champs for an entire year, up until the next year's SuperBowl, if they make it that far at least. So comparing the WWE title to NFL SuperBowl champs isn't really possible, because the titles are defended in different ways.
Now maybe if there was some kind of tournament througout the year that led to the main event at WM. Where the winner could be some kind of champ or whatever, and wouldn't have to defend his title or status until the next year. Then that would be something similar to the NFL. Hey, maybe that's not such a bad idea? What do you think? Something different than King of the Ring, where everyone including main eventers and champions could participate.
But anyways, sorry to drag this out so much CyNick, but I just personally disagree with you. As long as the rosters are seperated, having two champs would be the best IMO. Anyways, I'm somewhat enjoying this little "discussion" or whatever you want to call it. I look forward to your response, because it will probably be easier to read than mine is.