What’s the point?
- Thread starter Koko B.
- Start date
-
Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!
I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register
Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board
So did I... lol. You’re not acknowledging my points. You’re acting like brand supremacy and the best fighting the best isn’t at all a reason, still pointless.
Because it isn't a reason. The only thing to these matches is that a wrestlers wants to win a wrestling match against another wrestlers. That's literally all there is to these matches. No incentive and no stakes. Just exhibition matches.
It’s like talking to wall here.
1. best vs the best.
2. Champ vs champ
3. Brand vs brand
Not reasons, just “things” I guess? Lol....look, I get they should still build more storyline to it, but I think the matches speak for themselves in this instance.
All I’m hearing is that you don’t like or don’t understand something; therefore, it’s shit. Understood.
Maybe part of my problem has been poor booking from WWE where wins and losses mean nothing. 50/50 booking and cards with no surprises. Brand vs Brand means little when they switch so often. There’s no history like the rumble. What could change during the POV for raw or smackdown?
I agree that they should have better builds and perhaps even have both titles on the line for something, but idk, I thought that when Brock fought AJ, as an example, it was fun to see champ vs champ. Brock had even more bragging rights saying he beat the best so he truly is the best. Plus, it was a damn good match.
In Smackdown vs. Raw 2007's GM, the main event of Survivor Series is always an interpromotional Hell in a Cell match. Raw chooses one person, Smackdown chooses one person. When my friend and I would play it, we decided it'd be boring to just like randomly pick wrestlers with no build, so we always made it between our brands world champions, with the stipulation that the losing champion would be forced to defend their championship on the following Raw/Smackdown. Since WWE decided to do this Champion vs. Champion thing with Survivor Series, I always wondered why they never added this consequence. It adds stakes to matches that don't really have them, and it provides extra incentive to watch the following TV episodes considering they'll have Championship matches on them. They don't even have to follow through and have any of the champions dropped the belt, I mean yeah that would be lame, but it would at least present the illusion of consequence and would add more meaning to the bouts.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2018
- Messages
- 2,138
- Reaction score
- 1,313
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 27
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Sports Team
-
- Favorite Sports Team
-
It's not like the WWE Network doesn't great Survivor Series PPVs in case it's too dull for some.
In my case it's going to be good , sh*tty build but good
In my case it's going to be good , sh*tty build but good
I think the best option, IMO, is for the Elimination Chamber match to go to the Survivor Series winner.
It doesn't have the same impact as "the last Rumble spot goes to the winner", but I actually think in kayfabe, if you're a random midcarder like Sheamus for example, you'd rather qualify for the Chamber, know who you're going up against, outlast 5 other guys instead of 29, then win the title to go into Wrestlemania... than deal with the sheer randomness of the Rumble when chances are getting the last 5 spots is no big deal unless you draw one of them.
I mean the world champion vs champion match would HATE to have to deal with defending their belt in the Chamber (assuming they're confident enough to retain until then), but that shouldn't be happening anyway lol
It doesn't have the same impact as "the last Rumble spot goes to the winner", but I actually think in kayfabe, if you're a random midcarder like Sheamus for example, you'd rather qualify for the Chamber, know who you're going up against, outlast 5 other guys instead of 29, then win the title to go into Wrestlemania... than deal with the sheer randomness of the Rumble when chances are getting the last 5 spots is no big deal unless you draw one of them.
I mean the world champion vs champion match would HATE to have to deal with defending their belt in the Chamber (assuming they're confident enough to retain until then), but that shouldn't be happening anyway lol
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2016
- Messages
- 2,524
- Reaction score
- 646
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 37
- Location
- Moncton, New Brunswick, CA
All of WWE makes just as much sense...
No I'm not trying to justify this particular storyline... I'm condemning WWE as a whole
It's been fucking stupid for 15+ years CHANGE THE CHANNEL!
No I'm not trying to justify this particular storyline... I'm condemning WWE as a whole
It's been fucking stupid for 15+ years CHANGE THE CHANNEL!
It would be good if they got rid of brand warfare and just told stories with stakes and do babyfaces vs heels
I think it'd be cool if they added something extra to the winner. Like maybe the brand gets more kayfabe funding, or a few superstars to pluck from the other brand. It would be cool to see them win something instead of just being like "welp Raw won. That's it."