411mania.com: Wrestling - 411 Fact or Fiction 10.15.09: Bound for Glory, WWE vs. UFC, World Title Changes and More!

Hello ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to another edition of 411 Wrestling Edition of Fact or Fiction! I'm Jeremy Thomas, and this week TNA's biggest show of the year is ready to unfold for us...and that's just the tip of the iceberg! We have two Wrestling Zone veterans going at it, as Mathew Sforcina of "Ask 411 Wrestling" fame takes on the man behind the 411 Instant Access, Scott Slimmer! Without further ado, let's get to it!

Questions were sent out Monday.

Participants were told to expect WWE & TNA-related questions.

1. The amount of title changes the WWE has had amongst the World Titles this year is devaluing the belts.

Mathew Sforcina: FACT. Although the title changes aren't so much the cause as the symptom. The terrible, short sighted booking is the real culprit, although that's not automatically apparent. What is apparent to anyone is that the belts are bouncing around a lot, which is supposed to allow everyone to look equal and create lots of stars is just making everyone look bad, and hence devaluing the belts.

Scott Slimmer: FACT. While it is true that World Championships are a tool that can be used to give credibility to wrestlers, it is also true that the wrestlers holding those championships must be able to give credibility back to the championships as well. When champions are made to look weak or unqualified, then their championships lose prestige by association. And when title changes occur as frequently as they have in WWE during the past year, then the impression can be created that the champions in question may not have deserved to hold those belts in the first place. If a champion loses a title only three weeks (or five minutes) after winning it, did he really deserve to win it in the first place? Or was his win just a fluke? And what kind of championship gets tossed about like a hot potato from one flash in the pan champion to another? Long title reigns make champions seem as though they really are the best there is at what they do, and that is what a championship is meant to signify. I'm not saying that we need the kind of multi-year title reigns enjoyed by Lou Thesz, Dory Funk Jr., Bruno Sammartino, Bob Backlund, and Hulk Hogan. In fact, those kind of epic title reigns would almost certainly become boring and tedious in the eyes of modern professional wrestling fans. But I would love to see the kind of lengthy reigns enjoyed by John "Bradshaw" Layfield, John Cena, and even our dearly departed Paul London & Brian Kendrick. Because longer championship reigns lead to credible champions and prestigious championships.

Score: 1 for 1

2. Booker T would be able to find more success in the WWE at this point in his career than he would in TNA.

Mathew Sforcina: FICTION. He'd achieve about the same, given how he left WWE and his current attitude. If the question was who needs him more, or who'd have more success using him, then TNA would win. But personal success? He's going to be an upper-mid card vet in either company.

Scott Slimmer: FICTION. Booker T has had a remarkably successfully career in the professional wrestling / sports entertainment industry, but the simple fact of the matter is that he is now an aging veteran whose best days are behind him. While WWE and TNA both have their fair share of wrestlers in the twilight of their careers, I would argue that the two promotions approach the recruitment and use of such veterans in very different ways. The majority of WWE's veterans have been with the company for at least a decade (with a few getting closer to two decades), and most of the veterans that remain on the roster are there because they can still entertain the fans, either in the ring or out of it (and in some cases, both). Yes, the Undertaker has lost a step (and maybe a hip), but you can't deny the fact that the fans still blow the roof off the place when that gong tolls. On the other hand, TNA has a history of seeking out established veterans who made their name in other promotions, and it often seems as though TNA is using these proven commodities for their name rather than their current ability. Given that Booker T is past his prime and not a "WWE 4 Life" kind of guy such as the Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, and Triple H, I simply think that he stands a better chance of being featured prominently in TNA rather than in WWE. Is it possible that any success he finds in TNA would be for the wrong reasons? Absolutely. But I'm simply not sure he could find any real success in WWE, be it for the right or wrong reasons.

Score: 2 for 2

3. Renaming No Way Out "Elimination Chamber" is a silly move that won't do the company any good.

Mathew Sforcina: FACT. Fact fact fact fact fact X Infinity. It's a bloody stupid name, the old one worked, stupid stupid stupid. I don't care if I sound childish, it's bloody stupid!

Scott Slimmer: FACT. I appreciate the value of branding in marketing, so I understand the reasoning behind WWE's decision to use the name "Elimination Chamber" in order to highlight the uniqueness of their February pay-per-view. However, my contention is that the use of the name "Elimination Chamber" for both a specific type of match and a specific pay-per-view featuring that type of match actually devalues the match and the pay-per-view by creating confusion about the meaning of the term. This is precisely what happened during the build to the "Hell in a Cell" pay-per-view when WWE's commentators consistently tripped over the distinction between whether rival competitors would meet in Hell in a Cell (i.e., the match) or at Hell in a Cell (i.e., the pay-per-view). I'm sure that more than a few fans were puzzled when the Cell didn't lower around John Morrison and Dolph Ziggler. The name "Hell in a Cell" used to bring to mind a singular vision of a monstrous steel behemoth, but now that image is obscured because the name also refers to one of the many pay-per-view events WWE produces during the course of the year. It's just difficult for me to envision a scenario in which a wrestling fan wouldn't pay to see two Elimination Chamber matches at No Way Out but would gladly pay to see two Elimination Chamber matches at Elimination Chamber. But on the other hand, it will be fun to watch the IWC explode when WWE holds a pay-per-view called "War Games" and then fails to feature an actual War Games match…

Score: 3 for 3

4. Putting the X-Division Championship on the Amazing Red due to interference from Bobby Lashley isn't doing the title any favors.

Mathew Sforcina: FICTION. While a clean win would have been nice, the belt had no business being caught up in the Joe/Lashley thing, so it had to be moved. Now that Red has it, the belt can be seen as a prize to be fought for, not a sidenote. The method was bad, but the move was good.

Scott Slimmer: FACT. I've said it before, and I'll probably have to say it again, but TNA's bastardization of the X-Division Championship is a shame considering that there was a time not so long ago when the X-Division Championship was the most important title in North America. Yes, you read that correctly, and yes, I absolutely meant it. When AJ Styles, Christopher Daniels, and Samoa Joe were feuding over the X-Division Championship in late 2005 and early 2006, that belt came to symbolize both the potential of the next generation of wrestlers to be major stars in the industry and the potential of TNA to actually showcase rising stars in a way that clearly made them unique from WWE. But now the X-Division Championship is being held by a jobber because it was used as nothing more than a prop to set up a feud that doesn't have anything to do with the title in question. The way to rebuild the prestige of the X-Division is to consistently allow the phenomenal stars of the X-Division to put on the kind of matches that only they can. Don't make the X-Division Championship a joke, don't make it an afterthought, and don't make it a consolation prize. Just make is a symbol of excellence for the incredibly talented wrestlers who are still proud to call themselves part of the X-Division. In the era of sports entertainment, just let us have one championship that's actually rewards a wrestler's ability to consistently give us the kind of high quality, high flying, high octane spectacles that we all know the stars of the X-Division can produce.

Score: 3 for 4

SWITCH!

5. Vince McMahon is absolutely right when he says the WWE can't compete with the UFC and should therefore be producing a "more sophisticated" product.

Scott Slimmer: FICTION. I completely agree with Vince McMahon when he says that WWE can't compete with UFC. In fact, I'd go even further and say that WWE shouldn't compete with UFC, because they are two completely different forms of entertainment. One is sport, and one is theatre. There are some people, myself included, who enjoy both WWE and UFC, but there are many others who may only enjoy one or the other. Was Field of Dreams competing with Major League Baseball, or were they both just presenting two different sides of the same coin in very different ways? So yes, up to a point I agree with Mr. McMahon. But when he suggests that WWE is therefore producing a "more sophisticated" product than UFC, I have to question not only his vocabulary, but also his sanity. Sophisticated? Really? Monday night on Raw, I saw a joke about a small man pitching and a large man catching, a midget dressed like a leprechaun dressed like a born-again Christian boy toy, and a TV host saying "That was nutty!" after watching another TV host kick a man in the groin. Sophisticated? Seriously? Or is Mr. McMahon simply referring to the fact that this year no one has had sexual relations with a corpse, had a hand pulled out of a body cavity, or had human excrement sprayed all over them? I think we'd all be in favor of WWE producing a "more sophisticated" product, but that has nothing to do with WWE differentiating itself from UFC.

Mathew Sforcina: FACT. And I for one think that WWE becoming a more sophisticated product would be a great idea. When will it start?

Score: 3 for 5

6. Bound for Glory will truly be the last match of Sting's career.

Scott Slimmer: FICTION. More than anything else, this answer is simply based on probability. I mean, we're talking about professional wrestling / sports entertainment here, and for better or worse, there is no such thing as a "last match" in this industry. Ric Flair had the grandest retirement weekend that we've ever seen, and now he's preparing to get back in the ring. Trish Stratus was given possibly the classiest farewell in WWE history, but she returned to action (if only for one night) just a few weeks ago on Raw. Shawn Michaels broke his back, passed the torch to the man who would define the Attitude Era, and quietly retired... only to unretire four years later and then spend the next seven years stealing the show time and time again. So do I think that Sting intends for Bound for Glory to be the last match of his career? Yes. Do I have any idea when or where his next match might be? No. But it's hard for me to believe that Sting will never wrestle again, because the odds just aren't on his side. I mean, I'd mark like a little girl to see him face either Shawn Michaels or the Undertaker at WrestleMania 26. Or maybe, if he has a spare $75,000 sitting around, he could even buy Flair's NWA Championship and show up on Raw claiming to be the REAL world champion...

Mathew Sforcina: FACT. Well, Russo is booking, so you can't predict anything with him (The Rematch, Double Or Nothing! Sting's World Title and Career vs. AJ's Career and Video Game Collection), I think Sting knows what he's doing and has enough clout to demand to lose here cleanly and put AJ over. He may end up appearing in the WWE HOF, and get a DVD, but it will be his last match. I think. But then again, it is Russo...

Score: 3 for 6

7. The WWE would be wise to let Umaga come back, even if he hasn't completed the rehab they wanted him to.

Scott Slimmer: FICTION. I like Umaga. I really do. He has a great look, and more importantly, he is remarkably talented in the ring, especially for a man of his size. Some critics have said that his Last Man Standing Match against John Cena at Royal Rumble 2007 was overrated, but I still maintain that it was the best match of the year. So yes, I do believe that Umaga would be a welcome addition to any of the three WWE rosters. However, if Umaga truly has not completed rehab, and if he truly still has some kind of substance abuse problem, then it would be incredibly short sighted of WWE to rehire him and simply hope for the best. WWE dodged a major bullet when Jeff Hardy was arrested just weeks after his contract had expired. He easily could have still been the World Heavyweight Champion at the time, and it would have been disasterous for WWE to have one of their champions face such charges. But since WWE did dodge that bullett, they shouldn't press their luck, even if Umaga isn't destined for as prominent a position as Jeff Hardy's. What would happen if something happened to Umaga due to substance abuse while he is under contract with WWE? And what would happen if it was then revealed that WWE rehired him and once again subjected him to the rigors of life as a WWE Superstar even though they knew of his unresolved substance abuse problems? If WWE had any sense, they would do whatever is possible to avoid ever discovering the answers to those questions.

Mathew Sforcina: FICTION. WWE dodged a bullet with Jeff Hardy. Not that I believe he is guilty, mind you, fair trial and innocent until proven and such, but having him on the roster and being arrested would have been terrible. Right now WWE should not be hiring ANYONE with a drug problem. If Umaga refuses to do rehab (or, at the cynical worst, can't take drugs while pretending to be clean), then WWE shouldn't be touching him right now.

Score: 4 for 7

8. TNA has done a good job of building fan excitement for Bound for Glory.

Scott Slimmer: FICTION. In the interest of full disclosure, I should probably admit that I don't follow TNA as closely as WWE. I try to know who the champions are at any given time, and I usually know who main events their pay-per-views. But when I first read this question, I was a bit confused... because I had no idea that Bound for Glory was this weekend. And that's a big part of the reason that I went with fiction. But as I researched the card and read about the build to the show, I began to wonder if even loyal TNA fans were going to be excited this time around. Sting is making his annual Bound for Glory main event appearance, and in theory his match against AJ Styles could be quite good. However, after years of squandering Styles' talent, how can TNA expect the fans to get excited about this title defense, especially since he won the belt less than a month ago? Addionally, while I applaud the idea of having Matt Morgan work with Kurt Angle in order to give Morgan both experience and credibility, that match just doesn't have the kind of "big match" appeal that I would hope for on such an important show. I have complete faith that Mick Foley and Abyss will do everything in their power to entertain the fans, but I just don't see how those two men can possibly live up to the standard of insanity set in previous Monster's Ball matches. And I'm sorry, with all due respect to the talented wrestlers involved, that tag team Full Metal Mayhem match looks like a clusterfuck waiting to happen. So I guess the bottom line is that this card and this build might be passable for a normal TNA pay-per-view. But this isn't a normal pay-per-view. This is the biggest show of the year. This is Bound for Glory. And I'm just not as excited as I wish I was.

Mathew Sforcina: FICTION. I can't speak for the non-IWC, but here online I've heard little if anything about BFG. Most people just want to talk about WWE's stupid PPV name changes and/or Maffew being banned from Youtube yet again. BFG is hardly being seen as a great show, at least from where I sit.

Score: 5 for 8

A less harmonious set of answers than the last couple near-perfect weeks, but Slimmer and Sforcina still agree more often than not. Thanks to both of them for their answers, and you our readers for checking out what they had to say. Come back then for more 411 Wrestling Fact or Fiction!

Follow 411 on Twitter!
411mania.com
The Wrestling Zone
The Movie Zone
The Music Zone
The Games
The MMA Zone
The Boxing Zone
Follow Me, Too!

Remember to go to TigerFlashGames.com and play addictive, free flash games when you're bored at work, school, or whenever! If I had any time at my work, you'd find me there all the damn time!

And don't forget 411 on Facebook!

Post Comment (69) | Email Jeremy Thomas | View Jeremy Thomas's 411 Profile

Send To Friend |

Stumble It! |

Digg It! |

Please add your comment below.

If you are registered, you can login and post under your registered name. If not, you can post as a guest or register.

* Please note that 411 moderates all comments. Your comment will show up on the site after it has been approved by an editor.

Name :

Comment :

Remaining Characters :

2800

Comments (69)

While the WWE hasn't gotten as bad as WCW 2000 with it's world title shifts, it certainly isn't doing the credibility of either the titles or those that hold them any favors. It's as if the WWE booking team is taking lessons from Russo of how to kill a company with ADD. At least they're not going with insane and illogical face/heel shifts every week.

Posted By: Michael L (Guest) on October 14, 2009 at 10:50 PM

BRING BACK MAFFEW

Posted By: AngryTas (Guest) on October 14, 2009 at 10:52 PM

Just a quick observation here, but has WWE actually offered Booker T a contract? I mean, I hear all this talk about Booker being a malcontent in TNA and all, but has WWE shown any interest in him? Didn't leave WWE on not-so-good terms back in 2007? Does he just assume WWE will take him back, or am I just missing something here?

Posted By: Wesgr81 (Guest) on October 14, 2009 at 11:23 PM

"Plus, title changes are exciting."

Sure, when they're done well, they're plenty exciting. However, when it's a new champ every few weeks, what's the point?

Let's say you like fireworks. Where I live, you see them sparingly throughout the year. It's July 4th, New Years Eve/Day, and maybe a few more times here and there. They're a fun diversion, and usually a major part of the events they're used at. However, if they started shooting them off on a daily basis, not only would they lose their luster, they'd get pretty damned annoying. They wouldn't be such a big event on the days when they were originally used, because you see them every day. Why should I get excited about Wrestl...Superstar A winning the title from Superstar B, who had it for all of 2 weeks, when he's almost definitely just going to lose it at the next PPV?

Posted By: Guest#8664 (Guest) on October 14, 2009 at 11:27 PM

Really enjoy fact or fiction, but I'm always confused when one of the competitors doesn't follow all the wrestling programs in question. It seems to happen a lot.

Posted By: D (Guest) on October 14, 2009 at 11:49 PM

You may not think TNA has done a good job building up Bound For Glory, but I think we can all say that it will be better than that other companies "Flagship" PPV. At least we wont see the same people feud for like the 100th time.

Posted By: JWestmoreland (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 12:07 AM

Sting/HBK has to happen. That is all.

Posted By: Phil (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 12:13 AM

first, the title changes are no where near as abundant as they were during Attitude.

second, i find it hard to 'devalue' a title that isn't won in a real competition...unless you are talking about the literal dollar value of the gold in the belt.

finally, the only difference between MMA in general and WWE et al is that MMA tends to have a far more convincing level of kayfabe driving the storylines. well, that and in MMA people actually hit each other intentionally on the way to their predetermined match finish.

Posted By: Darth Mortis (Registered) on October 15, 2009 at 12:43 AM

TNA's done a fine job building BFG.

Posted By: Guest#7988 (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 12:47 AM

so we're sick of all the title changes but as soon as anyone holds the title for more than 6 months we bitch about it...maybe they should go back to the title only changing hands at the big four again?

Posted By: donnadahmer (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 01:04 AM

IF world championships were being swapped around amongst midcarders, that would be one thing.

For Cena to beat Orton, only to lose to him a few weeks later, does nothing to devalue the belt IMHO. If he lost it to Kofi, who lost it to Swagger, and so on.. that'd be devalued.

Posted By: Guest#4013 (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 01:08 AM

"However, my contention is that the use of the name "Elimination Chamber" for both a specific type of match and a specific pay-per-view featuring that type of match actually devalues the match and the pay-per-view by creating confusion about the meaning of the term."

I guess you never heard of the ROYAL RUMBLE, both the specific type of match and the specific pay-per-view featuring that type of match.

---

But there's only ever one Royal Rumble match at the Royal Rumble PPV, and it's obvious which match is the Rumble, whereas HiaC or Elimination Chamber could have two, three, or even four. Take a look at Breaking Point, where D-X vs Legacy, which had nothing on the line other than pride, had a submissions stip, but the ECW title match, ostensibly a "World" title, did not.

Posted By: Stephen Randle (Registered) on October 15, 2009 at 01:13 AM

If they wanted to make the championship mean something and have some kind of value ,the champ would defend it against different opponents,not the same one week after week.
Maybe they should make a new rule that says you get so many shots at the title and if you dont win in so many trys you go back down to the bottom and have to work your way up. From the bottom you have to win so many matches to get back to the title shots.
Also if the champ is defeating all comers for the belt and winning then he would look even more dominant. Flair would do this back in NWA in the 80s. He took on everyone. Or at least something to that affect.
In real sports you dont see the first and second place team constantly playing each other.

Posted By: Guest#6912 (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 03:30 AM

Sting/AJ has been building for well over a year. Sting focused on AJ since the start of the main event mafia storyline when he was talking crap about the disrespectful younger guys. The ending of the last PPV, with Sting turning his back while AJ won, symbolized a torch passing. Any torch passing is always intriguing especially since Sting complained about AJ until he started to embody what Sting considers the future of the business.

When Mick Foley showed up everyone instantly demanded Foley vs Abyss. They've been dancing around that storyline for quite awhile as well. Stevie has tried to pull Abyss one way while Foley tried to pull him another.

Matt Morgan and Kurt Angle has been building every since Morgan tried to join MEM. That story has spanned over quite a few pay per views.

It's been built more than enough. You guys just don't bother to watch the show so you haven't noticed. Besides, The IWC brainwashes each other to believe that TNA is horrible. Try watching Impact online while sitting in a chat room. It's impossible if you're a TNA fan. Everyone's way to biased. Then again with everyone wanting to be a front runner I'm not surprised. *waves to the Yankees fans*

Posted By: Burnout (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 04:26 AM

I forgot to mention that Bobby Lashley is fighting his first main eventer and it's the first time we've questioned if he will win or not.

Posted By: Burnout (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 04:30 AM

What the hell am I doing in this article?

Posted By: Maffew (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 04:44 AM

"at one time the X-Division title was the most important title in North America"

I'm pretty sure that's the most preposterous thing I've ever heard

Posted By: joe blow (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 04:51 AM

guess you never heard of the ROYAL RUMBLE, both the specific type of match and the specific pay-per-view featuring that type of match.

Totally different man. Not only does the Royal Rumble happen only once a year, but it's ONE match at that PPV. It's not like they start the show with a 15-man rumble, then have a 10-man rumble midway through the show, then rock the 30-man one at the end. The Royal Rumble is ONE match that main events the PPV that everyone looks forward to. If you have 1 HIAC match or 1 Elimination Chamber match to main event the PPV it's named after...then that's one thing. But if you sit there and throw 2-3 versions of the match on the same card...it's idiotarded.

Posted By: Jadd (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 06:23 AM

"I can't speak for the non-IWC"?

Don't you know any humans outside the internet? Oh, you don't? Well.. fine then.

Posted By: poffo316 (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 06:30 AM

1. The amount of title changes the WWE has had amongst the World Titles this year is devaluing the belts.

Scarry Larry: FICTION. Couldn't disagree w/ you two more. It only hurts the belts in the eyes of the smarks, if it even does that. Given this is a 'sport' w/ a title that can change hands under ridiculous circumstances like a chair shot or money in the bank (no offense Punk), the very notion that someone holds a title for more than a month is almost unbelieveable. Do I appreciate it when someone has the title for an extended reign? Sure. Does it devalue the title? No way. WWE might have gone a little overboard this year, but they've created a more competitive atmostphere in the process. I never liked it when the Chicago Bulls or Dallas Cowbows were winning titles every year and I definitely don't need to see month after month of John Cena and Undertaker holding gold.

Posted By: Scarry Larry (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 06:30 AM

I think having fireworks go off every single night of the year would be awesome!

Only in a perfect world I suppose.
How about fireworks at breakfast, brunchsnack, lunch, lunnersnack, dinner, and bedsnack only that each set of fireworks be different and completely random so you never know what type of grandeurinimitious works will happen snappen?

Posted By: RubarbIsTheBest (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 07:21 AM

1. The amount of title changes the WWE has had amongst the World Titles this year is devaluing the belts.

Fiction. I think it just means that their is good competition and no one dominant Superstar. Plus, title changes are exciting.

Posted By: Rubarb (Guest) on October 14, 2009 at 10:46 PM

In a way there might be something to this. Having the titles passed around so much could be viewed as meaning it's harder to hold on to them than ever before. It also might increase the value of any champion that does manage to reign for longer than 4 months.

But (to me) this rapid switching is cheapening not just the titles but the excitement value of when changes occur. Do you really still find title changes exciting when they are occuring on nearly every ppv now? I don't. I actually expect them at this point.

The WWE used to rely on match and angle quality to sell their ppvs. It was conceivable that an entire ppv might occur without any champions dropping their straps (especially when there were only several titles to worry about) A ppv could still be memorable for the quality of its content. Now nearly every ppv is a night of champions (not to mention the titular Night of Champions) and at least half the titles are changing hands at each one. There isn't any more suspense about how a champion will defend in the face of adverse stipulations, because we now know he'll probably just lose the gold and maybe win it back in three weeks.

It's a joke to look at the Who's Holding Gold list and see how many champions have matching reigns right now. They're just transitioning the titles in shifts. It feels like the company's booking is just a scramble of short term ideas right now (which it probably is given how many ppvs they have to book around).

The problem is, if they make money off all these ppvs they aren't going to cut down on them and they're going to have to keep resorting to desperate measures (like having the Champions of the Month losing in the Gimmick of the Month every month) to keep people buying them.

The best we can hope for (in appreciation of the quality of the product) is for WWE's insane ppv calender to start financially failing. I think fewer ppvs would lead directly to a better product. The company is pushing for such a wide fan base that nobody is being satisfied, least of all the long time fans.

A casual fan might strongly disagree with this opinion. But as someone who's watched wrestling for far too long a time now, it's getting harder and harder to enjoy a product that's catered to people that don't enjoy analyzing the intricacies of angles and don't understand the awesomeness of a proper blow off match at the end of an epic feud. It may be time to accept that WWE can't be fixed to old tastes.

Posted By: Duff McShark (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 07:26 AM

I haven't been following TNA for about 2 months, but Bound For Glory looks great. Aj Styles vs. Sting, Bobby Lashley vs. Samoa Joe, Kurt Angle vs. Matt Morgan, Ultimate X Match, Mick Foley vs. Abyss should all be good. I don't think Full Metal Mayhem will be awful like you say it will be. Plus Hernandez and Eric Young are two of my TNA favourites, so I'm excited for their match as well.

And this show looks head and shoulders above the majority of TNA's PPV, so I don't know what you guys are talking about. Then again you don't even follow TNA as you said.

Posted By: guest (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 07:38 AM

For the first Fact or Fiction:

Its not just longer reigns, it is longer reigns where the champs actually win matches. Win/Loss records in WWE mean nothing anymore, as do the titles.

It really is unfortunate that once upon a time I could name belt lineages and the matches they were won in when now I dont even know who the US champ is (and I watch EVERY week still). I think the Miz's recent victory of the IC title was pretty nice and maybe if he wins a few matches while champion (in good matches) it may add some prestige back.

Of course, that is just wishful thinking.

Posted By: AG Awesome (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 07:46 AM

Scott Slimmer: FACT. I appreciate the value of branding in marketing, so I understand the reasoning behind WWE's decision to use the name "Elimination Chamber" in order to highlight the uniqueness of their February pay-per-view. However, my contention is that the use of the name "Elimination Chamber" for both a specific type of match and a specific pay-per-view featuring that type of match actually devalues the match and the pay-per-view by creating confusion about the meaning of the term.

Yea, when I watch The Royal Rumble I am so confused. I think that every match on the card is going to be a Royal Rumble and boom, just ONE! Man, I'm jazzed and confused.
It's just soooooo devaluing.

Posted By: Guest#0292 (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 07:50 AM

TNA has done a good job building to BFG considering they only have 2 Hours a week to do it and not 6 hours a week Like the WWE

What people forget is the WWE is Huge and HAs all the time in the world to build for PPV TNA only HAs 2 Hours a Week and the Internet Adds

Posted By: craze (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 07:59 AM

9. The NFL has done a good job of building fan excitement for this week's Monday Night game.

Jacob: Fiction. I don't really watch the NFL, more of a college guy myself, but I looked at the rosters of the two teams along with the scores from their other games, and that didn't get me too excited to see them play.

Posted By: Jacob (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 08:19 AM

Fact or Fiction without Paul Cohen= FAIL.

Posted By: The Fuj (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 08:45 AM

no, world title is not devalued coz ppl, general fans, don't care about such things. only iwc does.

Posted By: hmm (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 09:19 AM

"However, my contention is that the use of the name "Elimination Chamber" for both a specific type of match and a specific pay-per-view featuring that type of match actually devalues the match and the pay-per-view by creating confusion about the meaning of the term."

I guess you never heard of the ROYAL RUMBLE, both the specific type of match and the specific pay-per-view featuring that type of match.

---

But there's only ever one Royal Rumble match at the Royal Rumble PPV, and it's obvious which match is the Rumble, whereas HiaC or Elimination Chamber could have two, three, or even four. Take a look at Breaking Point, where D-X vs Legacy, which had nothing on the line other than pride, had a submissions stip, but the ECW title match, ostensibly a "World" title, did not.

Posted By: Stephen Randle (Registered) on October 15, 2009 at 01:13 AM

--

Well, I guess you never heard of Survivor Series either then lol.

Posted By: rorster1986 (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 09:22 AM

It's so funny how this site continues to try and bury TNA on the eve of their biggest show of the year. All you ever read about TNA is how they aren't pushing their younger stars blah blah blah. Now they have a PPV in which three of their main event matches (Morgan-Angle, Sting-Styles, Abyss-Foley) is all about pushing the future of TNA, and now they want to act like it's no big deal.

I know this site is full of WWE marks, but get the wet dream of Sting ever showing up at WM out of your minds.

Posted By: Orlando (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 09:31 AM

TNA has done a GREAT job building Bound for Glory. Along with Wrestlemania it's a PPV I buy every year. We are very excited for it this year as they have a solid card that they have built very well over the past month or so. Much, much better than WWEs thrown together PPVs (filled with repeated matches) every 3 weeks.

Posted By: matrix1004 (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 09:37 AM

Finally! A douchebag-free edition of Fact or Fiction! Great job by slimmer and Mat!

Posted By: Manu (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 10:11 AM

1. Scott's observation is dead on - booking the champion the way WWE did to CM Punk and (years before) Rey Mysterio not only devalues the wrestler but also devalues the TITLE ITSELF.

7. Matthew, "Innocent until proven guilty" is a guideline for the legal system, it is not a thought police law. It's OK to say that Hardy is guilty. Anyhow, WWE will bring back Umaga, he'll fail another wellness test, and he'll be let go again.

It's obvious that higher level stars don't get tested as much, maybe not at all. I don't think Jeff Hardy said "OK, I'm out of my contract, now I'm going to go buy an assload of drugs since it won't embarrass the company if I get caught. Junkies do not think like that. This means that Hardy was not getting tested. So I'm waiting for one of the other upper-card guys to do something really stupid and show everyone what most of us already know - the "Wellness policy" is a joke that is only applied to jobbers, curtain jerkers, and mid-carders.

Posted By: Scott B (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Kimbo Slice is scary looking.

Posted By: Propagandhi (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 10:37 AM

People had no complaints when Mankind and The Rock were trading the title constantly

Posted By: Guest#8728 (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 10:48 AM

it will be fun to watch the IWC explode when WWE holds a pay-per-view called "War Games" and then fails to feature an actual War Games match…

*trollface.jpg*

God you were all trolled so hard. There is no such thing as "WWE: Wargames" someone on a forum posted that to troll them and then the dirtsheets reported it all around the net

Posted By: Guest#6213 (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 01:21 AM

Well...you're an idiot...because he didn't say there was one! He was giving an example of something that has nothing to do with what you're talking about....douche

Posted By: Erik (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Did you just call Amazing Red a jobber?

Posted By: Amp (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 11:03 AM

The amount of title changes the WWE has had amongst the World Titles this year is devaluing the belts.

Fiction...it's the sheer number of straps that does that... womans, diva, ecw, two tag team belts (ok unified now), US, Intercontinental, WWE and world heavyweight...that coupled with a mediocre over populated roster and the brand split mean that people don't care anymore... I have difficulty remembering who holds each belt these days but wouldn't have had a problem back in the Attitude days...

Posted By: Hardcore champion (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 11:29 AM

How can you say Booker T is better off in TNA where 238 people watch the program, where in WWE he would receive exposure to millions of viewers??? Even as a mid-carder, he'd be better off and probably better paid.

Posted By: Cash Money (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 11:29 AM

"It's just difficult for me to envision a scenario in which a wrestling fan wouldn't pay to see two Elimination Chamber matches at No Way Out but would gladly pay to see two Elimination Chamber matches at Elimination Chamber."

This is such a brilliant argument; it really should knock some sense into a few heads in WWE if they should happen to read this website. I hope they do.

And Bob (if that is your real name), come on. Tell me you're not being serious. When you're talking about the Royal Rumble, that's a completely different scenario. As a wrestling fan, you know that only the Royal Rumble is the Royal Rumble with 30 entrants, and that if they advertise Kofi Kingston vs. Jack Swagger, then that's obviously a singles match and NOT PART OF THE ROYAL RUMBLE MATCH.

But when you're talking about John Morrison vs. Dolph Ziggler at Hell in a Cell, there's no reason why they couldn't have fought in a Hell in a Cell match, other than the powers that be deemed that it wasn't to be so. That means viewers need to be paying more attention to receive the same basic message from the program: who's fighting, when, where and how. And if they get confused, it's WWE's problem because it can only lead to reduced buyrates and/or disgruntled fans. It simply CAN'T end up with a positive outcome.

Posted By: DXSSI (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Yeah all the world title changes hurt the value of the belt, like the UFC light-heavyweight title being switched around on one off champions. I mean, as long as the title changes make sense, then who cares if the belt switches a lot.

Posted By: seaneb14 (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 12:19 PM

1.) FACT: To me the World Title is a paper title and was created for Triple H and it holds no prestige. For a younger fan it obviously means something if you look at it from a kayfabe perspective. The WWE Championship is the most prestigous title in the world. So prestigous that I dont think the blow it receives is that bad but bad nonetheless. The key to all of this is as I look towards Wrestlemania which is 6 months away (I'm going!) and envision what the title matches might be I cant safely say that anyone who is champion now especially Heavyweight champion will still be holding their respective titles for another 6 months and that's based on recent history of title changes.

2.) FICTION: First off If I'm Vince McMahon I don't touch Booker T with a 10 ft pole. He had a bad attitude when he left due to his suspension (whether or not he was justified is another issue), he didn't like his creative direction in regards to what he was doing with Triple H, and finally he's old. The WWE should be in full out star making mode. Booker will just take someone elses spot. Now if he were to be signed and put on ECW as a top guy there with the likes of Christian and Regal I think that would be best for him because he would be lost on the other 2 shows. But back to the point, if he grew a sack and started DOING BUSINESS again he could be a tremendous asset to TNA and his career would be much better off there than WWE.

3.) FICTION: Disclaimer...I hate the name change and I think it's insulting to me that they have to change it for me to understand what the PPV is all about. But as said earlier I understand why they are doing as part of rebranding their PPV's as this directed to their younger/newer fans, who really don't have much connection with NO WAY OUT, or Unforgiven, or NO Mercy (to name a few) which carry their roots from the attitude era. Also buyrates have slipped so obviously they need the fans to invest some sort of interest in buying their product every month.

4.) FICTION X10: This gives importance to the title. If Joe still had it and was stuck in the JOE/LASHLEY feud it would be in pergatory. Having Joe lose it in the fashion he did means they cant set up contenders for it and it also adds more to the JOE/LASHLEY fued cus he cost him the title.

5.) FACT: Vince doesn't truly compete with any other sport and this would include UFC. There is nothing sophisticated about sports or UFC. It's A vs. B and let's see whose better. WWE's job is to make more sophisticated TV (they're entertainment) so this proclamation is nothing new.

Posted By: Justin (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 01:17 PM

6.) FACTION: Well that decision whether or not it has been made is in Sting's hands. If he wants to hang them up after BFG, TNA may try to lure him back for this retirement tour that's been rumored but if Sting says no there's not much more they can do. There's also the chance that he says yes or already has as well. This is a tricky question because of this. I guess we'll only know for sure after BFG. If it's all over and it's been presented as his last match then yes it is probably his last match. Sting seems like a guy who's comfortable with his legacy and what he's done in wrestling and I'm sure he's saved a good chunk of change along the way (unlike Flair). For the record if he hasn't gone to WWE already he certainly won't now. Sting has always held pride in the fact he hasn't signed with Vince and that distinction amongst the fans as the "only guy" seems very important to him. Down the road he'll probably contribute to a DVD project simply so he can control how he protrayed as well as come off as doing good business "for the fans"
and in the process WWE may try to get small contract for a match or 2 outta him but the Stinger will revel in the fact that they want him and that he holds the strong hand in that matter.

7.) FICTION: They would not be wise and I don't even think it's on their mind right now. I love Umaga he has tremendous skill and potential due to missed time and he could be a big star. Bringing Umaga back is probably seen as extra as I'm sure they like what they have as a whole. The story that is Jeff Harvey and his suspensions and ultimately his arrest is all the fear they need to shy away from the Samoan until he completes rehab. He'll get it done that's for certain. Will he be "clean" and for how long? WWE probably doesn't care too much for that until he comes up positive again but as long as they have on the surface is a "clean" rehabilitated Umaga to sign on the dottled line, they'll bring him back and the rest will mean nothing.

8.) FICTION: TNA will always be the minor leagues in my eyes and they are just TERRIBLE with a capital T. The day I see the Rock walk into the Impact Zone is the day I put the word EXCITEMENT next to the acronym TNA (wrestling of course!)

Posted By: Justin pt. 2 (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 01:35 PM

Not getting the BFG fictions...IMO, BFG on paper looks like one of the more intriguing cards of the year for any PPV from WWE, TNA or ROH....

AJ DEFENDING vs Sting
Kurt Angle vs Matt Morgan
Four way Tag Title Match
Elimination X for a Shot at the X Division Title with Pope, Homicide, Daniels and Suicide. Red is merely a transitional champ to get the title on to one of these guys so that they can focus the mid card on these guys.. (which is WHY they took the belt off of Joe...but you don't watch TNA so you wouldn't be able to put those pieces together)

Posted By: Industry (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 02:03 PM

When the Rock and Mankind were trading title runs with each other in 1999 it didnt hurt the title. If they had one champion for a year then everyone would be screaming bloody murder about Triple H hogging the belt. As far as im concerned these frequent switches are just experiments, gimmicks to help sagging pay per view levels. What the E doesnt understand,is that with poor economy, not many folks can justify a 40 dollar splurge on 3 hours of entertainment. If you are lucky enough to have that kind of disposable income then have at it. And simply for the sake of argument,how many main event guys does the E really have? ...6 maybe 7. As hard as i want them to Chris jericho and C.M. Punk just cant carry a pay per view. The only reason Randy orton can is because the fans are going to see him lose whatever title he has. 1 year ago when jericho was the world champion, the only people who cared were 7 or 8 people who post on 411. if he was such a huge success, why is he holding the useless tag titles? When the E backs someone, they back them hard. they always stay near or at the top of the card. jericho and Chipmunk Punk just cant lead the w.w.e. so they might as well be happy with second banana status.
Really Scott? the most important title in north america? Dude..what are you smoking because i need to hit that

Posted By: Old school fan (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 11:31 AM

There are a couple of differences between Rock/Mankind of '99 and let's say Cena/Orton of today:

1) Rock and Mankind only took up part of 1999...Cena and Orton have been going back and forth for what seems like a couple of years now (insert HHH at convenient points)

2)Rock and Mankind had a true blood feud going on with Rock taking Mankind's place in the soon to be formed Corporation, then Rock just tearing Mick down constantly! Cena and Orton once had something hot with Orton punting Cena's dad, but that was ages ago...now they fight just because they "don't like each other"...there is no drama behind it

3)Cena and Orton are nowhere NEAR the likes of Rock and Mankind with getting the crowd invested in THEM or their feud...they have great chemistry but it only takes them so far.

I think they should be trying to fold other RAW superstars into the mix like ECW and Smackdown try to do...a good healthy 4 month reign for a champion...3 weeks is too short, 8 months is too long. More importantly than whether the titles change hands, is whether the audiences are TRULY invested in how or to whom the title changes hands with. Cena and Orton in a bunch of gimmick matches doesn't cut it...there should be a real fucking story

Posted By: Erik (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 02:30 PM

1. The World Title changes: You mean those still exist around there? 2. Booker T: He'd have a better chance at dodging another charge from Wendy's than going back to McMahonland. 3. Renaming "No Way Out": Dude, what the fuck? 4. The X-Division Title: Can you say the new "NWA World Title"? 5. The WWE competing with the UFC: Don't waste your time! 6. Bound for Glory being Sting's swan song: I don't think so. 7. Umaga: I never missed him (because I never knew he was still around). 8. Bound for Glory: Insert weakass rebuttal here!

Posted By: David (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 03:06 PM

*Tries to wave back at burnout, but can't lift his arm because of all those damn rings weighing down his hand...*

So I'll just say "hey"...

Posted By: Rollz... (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 04:21 PM

on a Pre-determined outcome to matches?

Really? You are debating that a Championship is devalued, when it is determined before hand who wins? Erm, you guys know wrestling is pre-determined right. There is no value to the belts at all. It is just another thing to build Storylines around.

Posted By: Value (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 06:30 PM

Decent...But needs more Paul Cohen.

Posted By: Guest#4875 (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 07:39 PM

I'm sorry, but who really cares that much about the "credibility" of world titles besides the IWC? The IWC, a group of fans proven to be fickle, perennially nit-picky, and a group that clearly doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

Do you honestly think the 10-year old in the crowd is thinking about how Cena looks bad because he had a 1-month title reign?

I will say that Punk's title reigns have been underwhelming, but he's still the top heel on his brand, so it clearly isn't hurting him in the eyes of those who matter.

Posted By: Penance (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 08:06 PM

Also, Londrick's tag title reign didn't give cred to the champs or the titles. For that whole year (or almost a year), they defended the belts what, maybe once or twice on PPV?

And Vince is saying that the WWE product is currently more sophisticated than the UFC, not that it's sophisticated. Spongebob Squarepants is more sophisticated than the attitude-era of WWF/E, doesn't mean a yellow block in suspenders is smart TV.

And it's fucking wrestling, how sophisticated can it really get guys?

Posted By: Guest#7072 (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 08:14 PM

Duff McShark has the right idea: fewer PPV's.

With as many as the WWE puts on (and at the price they are), how many people are watching them all? TNA produces them too and the WWE would be foolish to believe that there aren't people in the "WWE Universe" who actually give a crap about what the other guys are doing.

Drop a few PPV's and give yourself more than 3 weeks or so to build up to the next one, maybe even establish a new feud instead of doing the fifth installment of Wrestler A vs. Wrestler B (including title changes and automatic rematches). Nothing's worse than December To Dismember having been just 1 week after Survivor Series and 2 before Armageddon), but more time wouldn't hurt, as long as you don't drag it on for too long. Wrestlemania has a longer buildup, but for good reason, and you couldn't do the same for most of the other PPV's. More time building up a rivalry or testing the waters to see how a face/heel turn or title change might go over would be a good thing and I think the overall quality would improve.

Instead of 14 a year, chop a few away. The gate would probably be the same, but the buyrates for those not in the area will probably rise. If you don't have as many PPV's to choose from, people may be more willing to shell out for what you do have to offer. As I said a bit back, there are TNA's offerings to consider, making the potential for 3 PPV's to choose from in a month. That's too much for a lot of fans to handle. Or follow.

I'd like to see fewer title changes and some more variety, not just moving to another gimmick match or adding/removing a rule/stipulation. We don't need lengthy reigns when there are several wrestlers at that level, but it'd be nice to NOT expect half (or all) the titles to change at a PPV and then have a couple of them change back on TV before the next PPV.

I hope the gimmick turn the PPV's have taken goes away next time around. Royal Rumble works. Survivor Series works when they don't forget to put in a Survivor match. King Of The Ring worked, but the concept has been ruined the last two times the name's been brought out. I liked Cyber Sunday. Leave it at that. Wanna break out the Cell or the Chamber? Fine. Thy're great in moderation. Putting more than one in a PPV, especially if the entire event doesn't use them, kind of ruins what they bring to the game. Sure, you may not want the Divas in either (they've only ever done one Divas cage match, maybe two) and tag teams might not be the best to send in; imagine the tag belts on the line while in the Chamber.

I don't think Red will be champion long, but maybe taking the belt off Joe now will allow the division to rebuild and become better againm, maybe with Red as a champion again in the future once that happens.

Posted By: ElvisShotJFK (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 09:11 PM

its funny how u guys think the world title dont mean shit now like the meant anything last year or the year before i mean edge is a fucking nine time champion and gets injured every year or ever other year

Posted By: Guest#7058 (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 09:19 PM

I know plenty of people outside the net. I just don't know any wrestling fans outside the net. Apart from fellow wrestlers, and they don't count.

Posted By: mlsq42 (Registered) on October 15, 2009 at 09:55 PM

Look morons, I know you all just like tearing down the IWC even though you are a part of it, but Vince actually convinced himself that he's the only person that matters. In truth, the only ones that matter are the fans, and yes, if CM punk and Orton get destroyed every time you see them, then they are obviously bitches who should not be taken seriously and are of no threat to the unstoppable good guys. How are you supposed to tell a compelling story featuring good vs evil like that? Not even the children will care because they know Cena cant lose. Then he loses, and everybody is confused because it makes no sense. The end result is losing the audience because they dont get it, nor were they all that interested in the first place.

Posted By: Guest#2355 (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 10:24 PM

Erm, you guys know wrestling is pre-determined right. There is no value to the belts at all. It is just another thing to build Storylines around.

Posted By: Value (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 06:30 PM

I don't think there's anybody reading this site who doesn't realize that the outcomes are predetermined. That is beside the point.

The problem with the Heavyweight and World titles changing hands every month is that while they do exist to build storylines around, the importance of these storylines revolves around the perceived value of the titles being challenged. The World title belts are supposed to be the focal point of the promotion, which should consequently enhance the drama of the matches in which they are at stake.

A vital part of appreciating professional wrestling is the suspension of disbelief. We know the combat is scripted, but we accept it as a representation of actual competition. However a match that is full of blown spots and strikes that obviously don't connect impedes our ability to accept the pretense of reality. If the wrestlers aren't convincing in their performance the audience can't make the crucial connection between the act being portrayed and the actual sport that it represents.

Well, just as we must allow ourselves to accept the false reality of suplexes and submission holds, we must also assign an imaginary value to title belts in order for them to impact the storylines in which they are incorporated. Once we accept the title's fictional value as actual (as is necesary for it to perform its designated function), it appreciates and depreciates within the context of the presumed reality. If we are pretending the wrestling is real, we must also pretend the integrity of the title is equally "real".

This the main eventers in Wrestlemanias 3, 4, 5, and 6 could have phoned in their performances and they would have still had matches that were considered classics. They were part of title stories that were that well booked (all of which came on the heels of long term title reigns). We were seeing matches where we cared about the resulting champion. Winning the title signified an actual accomplishment because the champions were not frequently unseated.

Between the two titles there have been over 13 changes so far this year (I've somewhat lost count). There isn't a point where the fans start asking "who could possibly beat this guy?" anymore. The champion is no longer the direction of the company (or brand), it is just drifting from ppv to ppv. Because of this the title has lost the necesary credibility to anchor the promotion.

Then fact the champ is predetermined could be used in WWE's favor to build strong championships; instead the WWE is bouncing them around, indecisively weakening them.

Posted By: Lance O' Leary (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 11:32 PM

1. Fiction---I am okay with a title acting like a "hot potato" if the storyline is strong among the parties involve. Plus we are talking about ratings. Example: If I told you that Taker was dropping the title next week on SD to Punk on a clean win would you watch? Most would say yes.

2. Fiction: See R-Truth, Chris Harris, and Christian

3. Fact: What a lame Fact or Fiction question. Next.

4. Fiction: 1: Joe is a main eventer and is pass the X-Title scene; 2: Joe/Lashley didn't need to be a title match to get the draw from the fans; and 3: The X-Title now can be showcased in a really good match at BFG.

5. Fiction: I agree that Vince can't complete with UFC, just watching Raw and ECW for the last 5 months shows that. Hell SmackDown is going the same route too. I feel that I am watching WCW programming all over again.

6. Fiction: God, how many times has a wrestler or a wrestling organization stated the whole "final match" concept to draw fans. Take a look at Ric Flair or Hulk Hogan, or better yet, Ricky Steamboat, who wrestled this year. Sting will go again, plus have either of you seen the TNA website? It states "Final Curtain?" with Sting's Pic. I feel that this is not the last.

6. Fiction: I am even surprised that WWE signed this guy.....again! Of all the guys out there (Kennedy, Flair, RVD, Sabu, and Dupree), they go for this guy???? He'll get busted again.

7. Fact: This PPV looks great and considering that TNA had what 4 to 7 hours a month of actual TV time to get this PPV ready says a lot (unlike Vince who gets 8 hours a week, and can't even put a ECW, US or IC on all his PPVs). On a side note: I can't believe that The Powers To Be asked you two this question. Slimmer, you "don't follow TNA as closely as WWE." You said "how can TNA expect the fans to get excited about this world title defense, especially since he won the belt less than a month ago?". I don't know? I guess the fans are going to be as excited as they were when Edge won the belt at No Way Out this year and wrestled a PPV later at WrestleMania against Cena and Big Show, or Jeff Hardy and Edge flipping the WWE title back 2 times in a row on PPVs (Armageddon and Royal Rumble). As for Sforcina, your opinion really doesn't count on this question. Your the same idiot that cracked on TNA for No Surrender during your Roundtable article this year, then after getting some IWC backlash, you tried to make it up to the IWC during the Hell In a Cell Roundtable. Whatever! Just keep telling yourself, I am a wrestling journalist, I am a wrestling journalist, and maybe the Wizard of Oz will give that ability.

Posted By: KT (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 02:45 AM

UfC can change titles all the time yet WWE can't. There is no difference just the IWC talking out of it's ass again.

Posted By: Guest#6052 (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 05:43 PM

" In fact, I'd go even further and say that WWE shouldn't compete with UFC, because they are two completely different forms of entertainment. One is sport, and one is theatre."

I sincerely hope you work for the WWE.

It's not theater. It's a comedy show.

Posted By: Guest#6169 (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 08:47 PM

UfC can change titles all the time yet WWE can't. There is no difference just the IWC talking out of it's ass again.

Posted By: Guest#6052 (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 05:43 PM

The UFC is legitimate, WWE is scripted. A UFC champ becomes far more impressive when he can hold the belt past multiple contenders? It's just that the brutatlity of the sport makes this possibility difficult to realize.

WWE has the opportunity to create this type of awesome champion because they decide the outcomes. Unfortunately, they refuse to just pick a guy and stay behind him. The result is that the title isn't serving it's intended function of making one guy into the centerpiece of his brand. It just shows how little faith they have in their roster.

Posted By: Lance O' Leary (Guest) on October 17, 2009 at 11:39 AM