The WWE Title tournament looks like being a massive missed opportunity.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Spilchuk Why is Kurt Angle not a thing? Guy is dying to go back to the WWE. Surely it cannot be his health, he could easily be protected. If it is sour grapes then that is dumb dumb dumb business.

Devil is in the details. Is he healthy? How much can he work? Is he addicted to pills? Hire much money does he want? Has he burned bridges?

[Damian Rey]

Originally Posted by The CyNick You don't seem to understand the difference between booked and announced on TV. I would wager the top matches at Mania were already booked, but won't be announced for months. If you don't get that difference, this conversation will go nowhere.

So what is keeping them from adjusting their plans seeing as a key cog of their long-term plansis now out for the next 6 to 9 months?

Things change. It's nothing new. This situation happened two years ago with Bryan. They adapted accordingly. I understand they have long term plans, however, these are professional writers. There's no reason they couldn't have used the tournament to further what they do have planned or plant seeds for those plans. Again, they just chose not to.

[Maluco]

Originally Posted by Theo Dious Aside: Regardless of how this is playing out, it will be good for Reigns in a storyline sense. He won the Rumble and then defended his WM spot against Bryan only to be fucked by Rollins when the match was teetering. Now he wins a title shot in a 4-way, only to have to fight through a tournament to regain that shot. Getting fucked again will hest him up SO well for a heel turn.

Would have been more epic though it is were a culmination of 3 matches in one night, where he feels he is going to miss out again, don't you think?

He then brags about beating 3 guys in one night for the entire reign, reminding fans of the screwjob on Ambrose and how he takes pride in it and keeps it as a medal

Honestly, these little things are not that hard to do, it just seems so lazy to me...

[Theo Dious]

My gut says WWE looks at Angle as too big a risk.

[Theo Dious]

Originally Posted by Maluco Would have been more epic though it is were a culmination of 3 matches in one night, where he feels he is going to miss out again, don't you think? He then brags about beating 3 guys in one night for the entire reign, reminding fans of the screwjob on Ambrose and how he takes pride in it and keeps it as a medal Honestly, these little things are not that hard to do, it just seems so lazy to me...

I absolutely agree. I just would never expect to see it.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Damian Rey So what is keeping them from adjusting their plans seeing as a key cog of their long-term plansis now out for the next 6 to 9 months? Things change. It's nothing new. This situation happened two years ago with Bryan. They adapted accordingly. I understand they have long term plans, however, these are professional writers. There's no reason they couldn't have used the tournament to further what they do have planned or plant seeds for those plans. Again, they just chose not to.

Again, why screw up long term plans just to make a one off event (this tournament) more interesting?

Say the plan is a babyface Reigns vs babyface Cena for the title at Mania. Why would you move away from that based on Rollins getting hurt? If the long term plan called for Reigns as a babyface to beat Rollins at Survivor Series, why wouldnt you just have Reigns win the tournament as a babyface, so you end up in the same spot? Only difference would be you had Rollins vs Reigns penciled in for the balance of the year, so now you need someone to fill that void. But you still keep your Mania plans in tact.

Of course you COULD change everything, and try to make the tournament more interesting, but if you felt the existing long term plan was the right move, why would you change that?

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Maluco Having an exciting tournament and achieving long term goals with it are not mutually exclusive and certainly shouldn't be for well-paid, professional writers. As for the second point, how many more wrestlers would actually get on the PPV otherwise? You would still have time for a Taker 4-4 match. That would be 16 guys on PPV. You have just said that the roster is thin...

You would have to rush matches to get a Taker match on the card. Taker's entrance on big events is lengthy, you need to build the match like its a big deal. They have built up the show as the 25 years of Taker - you would think there would be some video packages about that. So then if you include that match, you gotta short change the tournament matches. I would rather see Cesaro and Reigns get 15-20 on RAW then seeing them get 8 at Survivor Series.

A tourny plus the Taker match would get 14 guys on the show - no women.

If they just do the Finals or Finals plus Semis on Survivor Series, you can have some Divas on the show, tag team guys, a bunch of mid carders in a traditional Elimination Match. You cover more of the roster that way, and create a complete show. Trust me, I know why people who post on a wrestling message board would prefer a tournament, but the show is meant to appeal to a broader base.

[Maluco]

The broader base want to see things that matter too. They want to see powerful TV and compelling storylines. Not midcarders in a filler match...

[Simple Fan]

Yeah it wouldn't hurt any demographic to make something a little more interesting.

[Damian Rey]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Again, why screw up long term plans just to make a one off event (this tournament) more interesting? Say the plan is a babyface Reigns vs babyface Cena for the title at Mania. Why would you move away from that based on Rollins getting hurt? If the long term plan called for Reigns as a babyface to beat Rollins at Survivor Series, why wouldnt you just have Reigns win the tournament as a babyface, so you end up in the same spot? Only difference would be you had Rollins vs Reigns penciled in for the balance of the year, so now you need someone to fill that void. But you still keep your Mania plans in tact. Of course you COULD change everything, and try to make the tournament more interesting, but if you felt the existing long term plan was the right move, why would you change that?

What long terms have I suggested change? Reigns can and should still win the tournament. He can still go on to face Cena. Taker can still show up and light up the crowd and the feud with Wyatt can still be continued. Nothing about the tournament would chang long term plans outside of Rollins' involvement. You can still enhance and progress feuds by including guys in the tournament instead of having guys just randomly tossed in.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Damian Rey What long terms have I suggested change? Reigns can and should still win the tournament. He can still go on to face Cena. Taker can still show up and light up the crowd and the feud with Wyatt can still be continued. Nothing about the tournament would chang long term plans outside of Rollins' involvement. You can still enhance and progress feuds by including guys in the tournament instead of having guys just randomly tossed in.

But that's what they are likely going to do. So you should be happy, no?

Reigns will likely battle the odds again and win. Owens vs Ambrose will likely be furthered. Del Rio will continue to be pushed by putting up a good fight against Reigns. Some up and coming guys got wins (Cesaro, Neville for example). You had a somewhat shocking upset.

Are you essentially saying the tournament is a fail because Bray Wyatt(embroiled in another program) and one of New Day (Tag champs and they likely don't want them to lose a throwaway match early in the tournament).

I just don't get the beef when we've only competed one round.

[Vastardikai]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Do you know if Batista is free on 5 days notice? Do you know if he wants to come in to work multiple matches and ultimately lose? You want a one night tournament to culminate with a MITB cash in? Sounds like an FU to people invested in the tournament.

I will answer in order.

I don't, but if he has a movie to shill, it would be an easy way to do so. Multiple matches in which one is a squash, and a second is a similarly short match. If the money is right, he'll play ball. He's a wrestler.

Yes. That is the planned and expected outcome. Snivelling undeserving champions are a wrestling trope, and you know that. The whole point of the cash in at the end of the tournament was to put heat on the heel and sympathy on the face. And, it sets you up for Wrestlemania. The Authority doesn't give Reigns a title match while Sheamus feuds with Ambrose. Reigns draws #1 at the Rumble and runs the table.

The difference being that with Sheamus, you don't get the backlash you'd get from fans that a Lesnar gets and got. And fans will want a guy to get that belt was stolen from him. Even have him acknowledge the elephant in the room, that he wasn't ready last year.

Ultimately, what I suggested will probably happen in some form. Including the Sheamus cash in to screw Reigns.

[Jazzy Foot]

Not having Bray Wyatt and the Undertaker involved was a big mistake and it just shows how badly WWE have screwed up in pushing the former who imo is one of the best heels/characters they've had in years but is in danger of descending into mid-card mediocrity.

When the Wyatt Family first split we assumed this meant Wyatt himself was going to be pushed into the title picture/main event status. It was questionable to have him job to the Undertaker as I felt given his potential for a long term career, Wyatt could have begun some kind of streak. It would have sense for him to beat Taker being physically imposing and a creepy/mysterious character. Having him re-join/reform the family almost smacks of the character taking a step backwards. In all honest the likes of Harper and Rowan are never going to be main event or WHC material, not in WWE anyway.

It would have made more sense and been more entertaining to have thrown both men into this tournament and have them meet in the main event. I am not sure what WWE have planned for Bray Wyatt in the long term but I can't help but feel that they may be too late or are completely overlooking the guy.

[The CyNick]

Couple things. Bray is a heel, heels can lose. I talk about this all the time but Foley lost a lot to Taker in the early going. People come back and go "yeah but Foley won two matches", which is fair. But he went right from two wins in the summer to many many loses and then was shot down the card and kinda floundered for months and months.

The way people go on here, you would think every new guy needs to win and win and win, otherwise they are finished. The real TRUTH is if you look back at most of the top guys, they went through different stages of going up and down. Eventually the talents talent determines how far they can go.

In terms of booking, I hear you, but I just completely disagree. If two guys have a beef with each other, sometimes the beef can superseed the desire to be champion. I've never heard Bray really say the title was a goal of his. And Taker went most of his career at the top of the card, and was rarely world champion. In this case, I think it kills the storyline to Taker just throw his name in the hat, and end up in a Qualifying Match against Tyler Breeze as your big comeback from injury. And then you are just tipping your hat if Bray and Taker are on a collision course. Why not just book them in a separate match.

As for Rowan and Harper, no they likely never become main eventers. Not everyone is meant to headline. Some guys are just support.

[Theo Dious]

Originally Posted by The CyNick I've never heard Bray really say the title was a goal of his

It's occurred to me that Bray never really targets champions. Has he even been in a title match of any kind?

[Simple Fan]

Originally Posted by Theo Dious It's occurred to me that Bray never really targets champions. Has he even been in a title match of any kind?

He follows the buzzards which prey on the weak and the dead. They got that part of the character right but never going through with anything with Bray has made him look weak himself. He could have had supernatural powers when he debuted after beating Kane but they stuck Kane in the shitty Athority role.

[Emperor Smeat]

Originally Posted by Theo Dious It's occurred to me that Bray never really targets champions. Has he even been in a title match of any kind?

Just once with MitB 2014 ppv. A few more if house shows count.

[Jazzy Foot]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Couple things. Bray is a heel, heels can lose. I talk about this all the time but Foley lost a lot to Taker in the early going. People come back and go "yeah but Foley won two matches", which is fair. But he went right from two wins in the summer to many many loses and then was shot down the card and kinda floundered for months and months. The way people go on here, you would think every new guy needs to win and win and win, otherwise they are finished. The real TRUTH is if you look back at most of the top guys, they went through different stages of going up and down. Eventually the talents talent determines how far they can go. In terms of booking, I hear you, but I just completely disagree. If two guys have a beef with each other, sometimes the beef can superseed the desire to be champion. I've never heard Bray really say the title was a goal of his. And Taker went most of his career at the top of the card, and was rarely world champion. In this case, I think it kills the storyline to Taker just throw his name in the hat, and end up in a Qualifying Match against Tyler Breeze as your big comeback from injury. And then you are just tipping your hat if Bray and Taker are on a collision course. Why not just book them in a separate match. As for Rowan and Harper, no they likely never become main eventers. Not everyone is meant to headline. Some guys are just support.

I hear what you're saying but I disagree. Losing too many times particularly to top draw stars makes Wyatt lose his mystique. Eventually there will be a point when the likes of Undertaker, Kane etc will hang up their boots and WWE needs a top draw heel. Wyatt has those qualities. The character is creepy as hell and has the physical attributes to boot. It makes sense to have him squash opponents and march towards some kind of a title even though he comes across as a complete psycho who just exists to defeat opponents physically and mentally. In a real sense, he's a natural successor to the Undertaker.

I think you mentioned something about him being a new guy but the guy has been around for some time now, notwithstanding his pre-Wyatt days. He's a believable heel and one everyone loves to hate as opposed to say Sheamus whose new gimmick just hasn't won over any fans (well from what I've gathered) or Wade Barrett who seems to be forever destined to mid-card mediocrity along with the likes of Rusev, Big E Langston (who were being hyped as dominant juggernauts).

Of the current crop (bar Cena and Lesnar who were long established already) it seems WWE are going to put faith in Rollins, Ambrose, Reigns, Wyatt and Owens and possibly Ryback as their "top draw" stars. Not sure whether to include Ziggler there too but he's already been a champion before so I view him very much as an established star.

Of course you only need to look to history to realise not every top star is going to be a champion; Piper, Dibiase, Razor Ramon, Bulldog etc. all legends in their own right but never held the top belt.


I just feel that with the current situation with Rollins out for some time, it wouldn't have been a bad move to have put the belt on Wyatt, crushing Undertaker in the process and forming his own "ministry" of sorts with his family serving him as some kind of brutal champion with his evil reign over the WWE.


P.S. I forgot to add that with Foley, part of his eventual appeal was that of a loveable loser. Somehow Wyatt doesn't strike me as the character that is going to be billed as a loveable loser.

[Anybody Thrilla]

I dunno. The matches have been good. So fucking what?

[Jazzy Foot]

Originally Posted by Anybody Thrilla I dunno. The matches have been good. So fucking what?

Because none of those involved in the tournament with the exception of Ambrose and at a stretch Reigns are really "face of the WWE material". Kevin Owens may be there in a year or so but I don't see him getting the belt at this stage?

The rest are all there to make up the numbers.

[Jazzy Foot]

Also with all the Undertaker focus in recent weeks and months and him making more live show appearances etc. I wonder if WWE are now building him up towards his retirement possible at WM 32?

It feels that way.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Theo Dious It's occurred to me that Bray never really targets champions. Has he even been in a title match of any kind?

I think his character is one that doesn't need the title.

I could see that changing once he turns face.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Jazzy Foot I hear what you're saying but I disagree. Losing too many times particularly to top draw stars makes Wyatt lose his mystique. Eventually there will be a point when the likes of Undertaker, Kane etc will hang up their boots and WWE needs a top draw heel. Wyatt has those qualities. The character is creepy as hell and has the physical attributes to boot. It makes sense to have him squash opponents and march towards some kind of a title even though he comes across as a complete psycho who just exists to defeat opponents physically and mentally. In a real sense, he's a natural successor to the Undertaker. I think you mentioned something about him being a new guy but the guy has been around for some time now, notwithstanding his pre-Wyatt days. He's a believable heel and one everyone loves to hate as opposed to say Sheamus whose new gimmick just hasn't won over any fans (well from what I've gathered) or Wade Barrett who seems to be forever destined to mid-card mediocrity along with the likes of Rusev, Big E Langston (who were being hyped as dominant juggernauts). Of the current crop (bar Cena and Lesnar who were long established already) it seems WWE are going to put faith in Rollins, Ambrose, Reigns, Wyatt and Owens and possibly Ryback as their "top draw" stars. Not sure whether to include Ziggler there too but he's already been a champion before so I view him very much as an established star. Of course you only need to look to history to realise not every top star is going to be a champion; Piper, Dibiase, Razor Ramon, Bulldog etc. all legends in their own right but never held the top belt. I just feel that with the current situation with Rollins out for some time, it wouldn't have been a bad move to have put the belt on Wyatt, crushing Undertaker in the process and forming his own "ministry" of sorts with his family serving him as some kind of brutal champion with his evil reign over the WWE. P.S. I forgot to add that with Foley, part of his eventual appeal was that of a loveable loser. Somehow Wyatt doesn't strike me as the character that is going to be billed as a loveable loser.

I see it as Wyatt isn't a guy people love to hate. I think a lot of the fans dig him. When he was doing that singing got the whole world in his hands, the crowd was singing with him. I think they purposely cut that of because they wanted to keep him heel. Eventually he will turn and likely start to win more.

Putting the title on Bray would be a complete change from their current direction (Reigns as the top guy). This is what I was talking about where you shouldn't change long term plans just because Seth got injured. They have a long term plan in place, and have been planting seeds to get there. You shouldn't tear up the whole garden because of one weed.

I don't know how long the Bray-Taker thing will last. I'm guessing at least a couple months. If that's Takers match for Mania, maybe Bray will get a win over him at Rumble and then Mania will be an underdog stoty for Taker. Maybe this culminates with Taker losing to Bray at Mania. Or maybe Bray loses a hard fought battle and shakes his hand. Maybe it's just for Taker to get some wins and look credible again for something bigger at Mania.

Either way, Bray is talented, he will still be over.

[Jazzy Foot]

Originally Posted by The CyNick I see it as Wyatt isn't a guy people love to hate. I think a lot of the fans dig him. When he was doing that singing got the whole world in his hands, the crowd was singing with him. I think they purposely cut that of because they wanted to keep him heel. Eventually he will turn and likely start to win more. Putting the title on Bray would be a complete change from their current direction (Reigns as the top guy). This is what I was talking about where you shouldn't change long term plans just because Seth got injured. They have a long term plan in place, and have been planting seeds to get there. You shouldn't tear up the whole garden because of one weed. I don't know how long the Bray-Taker thing will last. I'm guessing at least a couple months. If that's Takers match for Mania, maybe Bray will get a win over him at Rumble and then Mania will be an underdog stoty for Taker. Maybe this culminates with Taker losing to Bray at Mania. Or maybe Bray loses a hard fought battle and shakes his hand. Maybe it's just for Taker to get some wins and look credible again for something bigger at Mania. Either way, Bray is talented, he will still be over.

I'm sceptical as to how a face Wyatt would be perceived or even work. When I say love to hate I mean in the sense that he is a heel yes but we cheer for him be it the sing a longs etc much like how we all cheered for the NWO back in the day.

I just feel that given Rollins was meant to be a more long-term champion, this would have been an ideal moment to give someone a brief moment in the spotlight i.e. someone who wasn't meant to figure in the main title picture at say WM 32.

For me the first pick would have been Sting as to quote what I said before, should he return from injury and wrestle again I feel (and I presume) he is "owed" for effectively jobbing twice and as wild as it may seem I don't think it is beyond the scope of impossibility to see him lift the title even at 56/57. Does he need a WWE title reign to his name? Not really, he will always be a legend, but we would sure like to remember his final days in wrestling and indeed his only WWE stint on a more positive note than by jobbing to both Triple H and Seth Rollins. However his neck may have the final say in that and frankly as a Sting fan I would rather he didn't get in the ring again if there is the risk of him sustaining serious/permanent injury to his health.

My second choice was the Undertaker. This would have seemed ridiculous given the beating he just took from Lesnar at HIAC. However, the whole SS event is being billed/hyped around the Undertaker and at the moment it seems the Undertaker is getting far more exposure than he has had in recent years. I can only assume that this is more or less "the last hurrah" or more appropriately "the last ride" for the Undertaker and he is very much on the road to retirement which will possibly end at WM 32. Thus in my opinion and given the unfortunate situation with Rollins, why not have allowed the Undertaker to take the limelight with one last WWE title reign at the event in which he made his debut? It could have involved him in a final round match with Wyatt etc so as to preserve their storyline even though they would have overlooked the SS elimination match? I just think it would have been a fitting tribute to the man but like Sting, another WWE title reign or lack of wouldn't have impacted on his legacy. I just felt it would have been a natural and fitting choice.


I honestly think it will come down to Reigns v Ambrose, an old fashioned face v face match and the winner shakes the losers hand or vice versa. No need for a heel turn or a twist at this stage. Just let Reigns and Ambrose put on a decent match and have them hold the belt going towards WM 32.


I say Ambrose wins the belt and drops it to Sting at WM 32.

[DAMN iNATOR]

LOL, Sting.

[Jazzy Foot]

Originally Posted by DAMN iNATOR LOL, Sting.

Crazier shit's gone down in WWE before and will no doubt again. That he even featured in WWE title match in the first place was pretty amazing.

[Shisen Kopf]

Hopefully the winner of the tournament is Dean Ambrose bc he is the titty master. Honk, honk.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Jazzy Foot I'm sceptical as to how a face Wyatt would be perceived or even work. When I say love to hate I mean in the sense that he is a heel yes but we cheer for him be it the sing a longs etc much like how we all cheered for the NWO back in the day. I just feel that given Rollins was meant to be a more long-term champion, this would have been an ideal moment to give someone a brief moment in the spotlight i.e. someone who wasn't meant to figure in the main title picture at say WM 32. For me the first pick would have been Sting as to quote what I said before, should he return from injury and wrestle again I feel (and I presume) he is "owed" for effectively jobbing twice and as wild as it may seem I don't think it is beyond the scope of impossibility to see him lift the title even at 56/57. Does he need a WWE title reign to his name? Not really, he will always be a legend, but we would sure like to remember his final days in wrestling and indeed his only WWE stint on a more positive note than by jobbing to both Triple H and Seth Rollins. However his neck may have the final say in that and frankly as a Sting fan I would rather he didn't get in the ring again if there is the risk of him sustaining serious/permanent injury to his health. My second choice was the Undertaker. This would have seemed ridiculous given the beating he just took from Lesnar at HIAC. However, the whole SS event is being billed/hyped around the Undertaker and at the moment it seems the Undertaker is getting far more exposure than he has had in recent years. I can only assume that this is more or less "the last hurrah" or more appropriately "the last ride" for the Undertaker and he is very much on the road to retirement which will possibly end at WM 32. Thus in my opinion and given the unfortunate situation with Rollins, why not have allowed the Undertaker to take the limelight with one last WWE title reign at the event in which he made his debut? It could have involved him in a final round match with Wyatt etc so as to preserve their storyline even though they would have overlooked the SS elimination match? I just think it would have been a fitting tribute to the man but like Sting, another WWE title reign or lack of wouldn't have impacted on his legacy. I just felt it would have been a natural and fitting choice. I honestly think it will come down to Reigns v Ambrose, an old fashioned face v face match and the winner shakes the losers hand or vice versa. No need for a heel turn or a twist at this stage. Just let Reigns and Ambrose put on a decent match and have them hold the belt going towards WM 32. I say Ambrose wins the belt and drops it to Sting at WM 32.

Well who knows what the plans were, but sounds like Reigns was slated to take the strap at Survivor Series. This ultimately sucks for Rollins, because its 9 months where goes from making top guy money, to just living off his downside guarantee. That said, he avoids losing the title, and he likely gets a ready made storyline with Triple H to come back to. If he turns face, which I assume will be the plan, there will be money is him chasing whoever is the champ at the time.

Yeah we just dont see eye to eye on Sting. I've said before, my position on Sting is he's a legend in WCW folklore, but in the grand scheme of the business, I dont think he's as big as some people make him out to be. Plus at his age, I just dont think he should be beating any of the young lions WWE has. Could he get a win over another legend? Sure. But I dont see much value in a Sting title reign. He's not going on the road, so I just dont think you get much benefit.

Taker is far more logical, but I think the way the storyline went down to have him just be one sixteenth of a tournament, doesn't do the angle with the Wyatt's any justice. you could probably tell any last hurrah storyline with Taker at the Royal Rumble. Like he wants to win it, so he can fight for the title in front of his home state for what could be his last match. But he's pretty close to his expiry date, and I even think with the little amount he's worked this year, he's overexposed. I really think Taker is best utilized once or twice a year as a special attraction. That said, I understand why they wanted him around this year with the 25th anniversary. I just dont think he needs the title.

I think Reigns vs Ambrose with no turn is a fine ending. People on here will complain, but it continues on the upward trend of The Shield boys, and you could still have Ambrose-Reigns over a couple PPVs. The only problem there is Ambrose has already lost several times to Rollins, if he's used as the whipping boy for Reigns, it might hurt him. Ideally it would be best if they can keep both Ambrose and Reigns strong as babyfaces, then when Rollins comes back, they can swerve like he's still with The Authority, but he double crosses them, and you have The Shield back together as a babyface unit. That could lead to an eventual Triple Threat down the line.

[Jazzy Foot]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Well who knows what the plans were, but sounds like Reigns was slated to take the strap at Survivor Series. This ultimately sucks for Rollins, because its 9 months where goes from making top guy money, to just living off his downside guarantee. That said, he avoids losing the title, and he likely gets a ready made storyline with Triple H to come back to. If he turns face, which I assume will be the plan, there will be money is him chasing whoever is the champ at the time. Yeah we just dont see eye to eye on Sting. I've said before, my position on Sting is he's a legend in WCW folklore, but in the grand scheme of the business, I dont think he's as big as some people make him out to be. Plus at his age, I just dont think he should be beating any of the young lions WWE has. Could he get a win over another legend? Sure. But I dont see much value in a Sting title reign. He's not going on the road, so I just dont think you get much benefit. Taker is far more logical, but I think the way the storyline went down to have him just be one sixteenth of a tournament, doesn't do the angle with the Wyatt's any justice. you could probably tell any last hurrah storyline with Taker at the Royal Rumble. Like he wants to win it, so he can fight for the title in front of his home state for what could be his last match. But he's pretty close to his expiry date, and I even think with the little amount he's worked this year, he's overexposed. I really think Taker is best utilized once or twice a year as a special attraction. That said, I understand why they wanted him around this year with the 25th anniversary. I just dont think he needs the title. I think Reigns vs Ambrose with no turn is a fine ending. People on here will complain, but it continues on the upward trend of The Shield boys, and you could still have Ambrose-Reigns over a couple PPVs. The only problem there is Ambrose has already lost several times to Rollins, if he's used as the whipping boy for Reigns, it might hurt him. Ideally it would be best if they can keep both Ambrose and Reigns strong as babyfaces, then when Rollins comes back, they can swerve like he's still with The Authority, but he double crosses them, and you have The Shield back together as a babyface unit. That could lead to an eventual Triple Threat down the line.

WRT Sting, I struggle to see the point in his WWE run without some kind of "high-point" i.e. a WM win, a couple of wins against top draw stars and/or a title reign. Yes it seems bizarre to give him the nod ahead of younger stars but in that respect those younger guys will still be around in 5-10 years whereas Sting may well be retired in less than a year. In any case any Sting or Undertaker title run wouldn't need to be a long-term run much in the vein of Hogan's final WWE title run. It would just be a case of giving either man that moment in the spotlight or very much a "thank you for everything you've done" and for them to kind of say "goodbye" whilst on top. In all honesty whilst I appreciate his age may well have impacted, it was always going to be impossible to drive forward any meaningful storyline involving Sting. Even the feud with Triple H I felt lacked the hype and backstory. Think about his feuds with the NWO, the baseball bat beatings, the mind games, the vignettes etc etc. We only really got a fraction of that. Had there been some kind of stipulation to the match too (e.g. Sting gains control of the WWE if he wins) that would have made it all the more enticing. Instead we just got "a match" which in parts felt badly timed, a pointless run out by the NWO and DX and then after the weeks of bad blood and feuding, they shake hands? WTF? Had Triple H won the match fair and square then fine a handshake is all well and good. But he won with the help of his DX buddies and a sledgehammer (even if it was no DQ). Not quite sure what direction they wanted to go in with Sting and whether there will be a final chapter to all this but frankly there are no real high points to take away other than he fought at WM 32 and in a WWE title match.


As a Sting fan I'd love nothing more than to see the man hold the WWE title. A man who for more than a decade was the top draw in WWE's rival company to come to them and be their champion. It cements his legacy although not winning the title wouldn't damage it.

Also I can't imagine that the current situation is going to be a "long-term" champion. I firmly believe Rollins was due to hold the title until at least WM 32 and if anything we were all getting into his title run/story.

I also echo my previous comment in that I find it hard to digest how they can have a WWE title tournament and not be including Cena and Lesnar who are easily to two biggest draws in the company. I've made it pretty clear my disdain for most of the new generation with the exception of Rollins, Ambrose and Wyatt and I think Cena v Lesnar for the title carries infinitely more weight than Owens v Reigns or Ziggler v Reigns etc.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Lol when their is a title tournament for your vacant world title, all wrestlers should be looking to get into the tournament, that simple

[Jazzy Foot]

Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead Lol when their is a title tournament for your vacant world title, all wrestlers should be looking to get into the tournament, that simple

The biggest uninjured stars. Sting understandable but Cena, Lesnar, Taker and Kane are available to some extent and Wyatt too and they've been overlooked for the likes of Neville, Owens and Kallisto.

[Ruien]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Again, why screw up long term plans just to make a one off event (this tournament) more interesting?

So the product does not suck?

[DAMN iNATOR]

Originally Posted by Jazzy Foot Crazier shit's gone down in WWE before and will no doubt again. That he even featured in WWE title match in the first place was pretty amazing.

I just don't feel like I would care for Sting as champion and I don't think fans would go for it either.

All that being said without even CONSIDERING the fact that he may never wrestle again after that injury in his match v. Rollins.

[DAMN iNATOR]

Originally Posted by Ruien So the product does not suck?

Hey, you know how it is - If CyNick says it, it MUST be true.

[Mr. Nerfect]

The problem with calling in big name stars for this tournament is that it betrays the talent depth problem as much as not having them in there. I completely understand the WWE's desire to leave guys like Chris Jericho, Batista, The Rock, Brock Lesnar, Triple H, etc. out of contention. Realistically, they're not going to be the guys carrying television moving forward, so use the guys you are going to have on TV and let the tournament be about their trials and tribulations.

That being said, the 50/50 booking of guys has ruined many of the fans' perceptions of them as viable World Title contenders, which is why this tournament is coming off quite cold to many people. Vince McMahon's "One Guy" approach to booking is coming back to bite him in the ass here. When your Cena's and Orton's are out, there isn't anyone you can really go to.

Ideally, this tournament would build up a massive heel and a massive babyface to carry television, live specials and house shows for a few months. We're only going to be sans-Cena until around TLC time (although I think they should leave him off until the Rumble), but I hope the WWE has taken notice that it's really hanging Survivor Series on The Undertaker right now -- and he's not always going to be around to bail them out.

[Vastardikai]

Only reason I even considered a part timer was he had to be heel and he needed an easy road to make Reigns look sympathetic to beat him, only to get screwed later.

[Jazzy Foot]

Originally Posted by Noid The problem with calling in big name stars for this tournament is that it betrays the talent depth problem as much as not having them in there. I completely understand the WWE's desire to leave guys like Chris Jericho, Batista, The Rock, Brock Lesnar, Triple H, etc. out of contention. Realistically, they're not going to be the guys carrying television moving forward, so use the guys you are going to have on TV and let the tournament be about their trials and tribulations. That being said, the 50/50 booking of guys has ruined many of the fans' perceptions of them as viable World Title contenders, which is why this tournament is coming off quite cold to many people. Vince McMahon's "One Guy" approach to booking is coming back to bite him in the ass here. When your Cena's and Orton's are out, there isn't anyone you can really go to. Ideally, this tournament would build up a massive heel and a massive babyface to carry television, live specials and house shows for a few months. We're only going to be sans-Cena until around TLC time (although I think they should leave him off until the Rumble), but I hope the WWE has taken notice that it's really hanging Survivor Series on The Undertaker right now -- and he's not always going to be around to bail them out.

Or perhaps most of the guys involved in the tournament are unlikely to figure in the WWE title picture in the foreseeable future? The likes of Barrett, Neville, Kallisto etc. Maybe this acts as a way of giving them all a bite of the cherry as it were.

I think the best ending to this tournament is Reigns v Ambrose both as faces and both put on a great match at Survivor Series.

[Simple Fan]

Would like to see Bray beat Taker and Kane and truly take their souls and use them to stop Reigns from winning the title. Keeps Reigns and Ambrose face and continues the theme of Reigns getting screwed. HHH and Bray both have something against Reigns and would have a mutual interest in working with each other. Could either have Ambrose win off a distraction or keep the belt vacant with a DQ.

[Jazzy Foot]

Originally Posted by DAMN iNATOR I just don't feel like I would care for Sting as champion and I don't think fans would go for it either. All that being said without even CONSIDERING the fact that he may never wrestle again after that injury in his match v. Rollins.

I do keep mentioning that in my posts regarding Sting i.e. everything is pie in the sky until there is any sort of indication he is fit enough to get back inside the ring.

I think the fans do care for Sting given the reactions to his appearances. A title reign albeit a brief one would go down well I think but it appears that won't be happening until 2016 if ever.

[Ultra Mantis]

The WWE website has put up a poll on who people want to see win the tournament.

http://www.wwe.com/inside/polls/who-...tle-tournament

Cesaro currently leading at 36%, real shame he can't connect with the fans.