The Bottom Line - Should WWE recognize all of Flair's world title reigns? - Page 5 - Wrestling Forum: WWE, AEW, New Japan, Indy Wrestling, Women of Wrestling Forums

View Poll Results: Should WWE recognize Ric Flair rightfully as a 25 time World Champion?
Yes 26 60.47%
No 17 39.53%
Voters: 43. You may not vote on this poll

 76Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #41 of 46 (permalink) Old 01-03-2018, 02:09 AM
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6,273
Points: 11,631
                     
Re: The Bottom Line - Should WWE recognize all of Flair's world title reigns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Therapy View Post
Don't worry, when he's dead WWE will go above and beyond to make sure they recognize every single title he ever owned to exploit the shit out of it. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't even acknowledge the all titles to the cars he owned at that point yet somehow, in only a way WWE could possibly do make it all, 100% completely and utterly about them only.
I have no doubt this will happen. They own the footage and it will be a marketing point to show "THE REAL History of Ric Flair" project.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flair Flop View Post
I don’t think that Ric’s 2 WWF reigns were included in that 16, though. Here’s a promo he cut when he came back and he refers to himself as the 9 time champ.



He also acknowledges the separate titles when the NWA and the WCW titles were split in 91 which is one that WWE doesnt recognize so that automatically includes the Fujinami NWA title change that WWE also doesn’t recognize. We know that at one point that WCW recognized both reigns so if the 2 WWF reigns were included that would have made him an 11 time champ at that point.
When Hogan faced Flair at Bash At The Beach WCW proclaimed him as 11 time world champion.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodeus View Post
Nope, they should recognize whatever they want to about scripted wins on the fictional TV show, what happens in the past doesn't count unless it'll help them make more money in the present.
This is too basic of a way to look at it. The past does count because it is why certain things have gravity in the present. The masses sure thinks so or the new era wouldn't consistently be compared to the past. The Network WWE has also says otherwise or they wouldn't have bothered to go to all the trouble preserving the past to help the sell current products. Not recognizing history will give viewers the idea that what they are seeing now is pointless. You know how they market "Where Were You When" for WM moments and so on?

Then again your post is playing devil's advocate I suppose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewjo32 View Post
All this "WWE can't now" is BS. They erased Hulkamania for crying out loud. They can do whatever Vince wants.
True however it only makes for another WWE and Hulk Hogan pay day when they "re-instate" Hulkamania into the annals of WWE once again lol.


Now about that devil's advocate above lol you see why the past never actually stays irrelevant?

Wrestling thrives on nostalgia. History loves to repeat itself.
Flair Flop likes this.

Last edited by promoter2003; 01-03-2018 at 02:11 AM.
promoter2003 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #42 of 46 (permalink) Old 01-03-2018, 02:16 AM
Team Narcisse
 
Flair Flop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Flair Country
Posts: 7,939
Points: 21,667
                     
Re: The Bottom Line - Should WWE recognize all of Flair's world title reigns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by promoter2003 View Post
When Hogan faced Flair at Bash At The Beach WCW proclaimed him as 11 time world champion.

During the time in between the video I posted and BAB94 he tacked on a NWA title win over Windham and also the Starrcade93 WCW title win over Vader.
promoter2003 likes this.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ByTor View Post
The only thing better than one Flair Flop is two Flair Flops. Wrestling would be better if more people did Flair Flops.
Flair Flop is offline  
post #43 of 46 (permalink) Old 01-03-2018, 05:19 AM
 
venkyrenga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,335
Points: 5,112
                     
Re: The Bottom Line - Should WWE recognize all of Flair's world title reigns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorWhosawhatsit View Post
Side question...

If WWE recognizes all of Flair's reigns as world champion regardless of what company he won them in, shouldn't they do that for everyone?

For example: shouldn't they recognize all of Jerry Lawler's reigns? The total of which is at least 50.

(I don't know the exact amount. @Greenlawler help me out! )
Lawler only held the Southern heavyweight championship multiple times not the world heavyweight.

Sent from my F3116 using Tapatalk



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Meltzer on WON
I don't like the guy(Triple H) and Hart is my friend, but facts are facts. But it is hilarious watching people twist themselves into pretzels for an excuse when the guy has had done well.
venkyrenga is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #44 of 46 (permalink) Old 01-03-2018, 06:14 AM
 
Wrastlemondu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Nottingham / Norwich
Posts: 4,171
Points: 7,265
                     
Re: The Bottom Line - Should WWE recognize all of Flair's world title reigns?

Wrestling is funny in a way.

In boxing you tend to win world titles once, & in different weight classes.

In wrestling you're winning the same thing, and losing it, over & over.

WRASTLEMANIA 35
Return of the RABID WOLVERINE!



Bah GAWD ALMIGHTY! It's him!!!

Although Brock Lesnar's "Go to hell tour" might be coming to a close; we still have the decade strong, Vince McMahon's "Go fuck yourself" tour to look forward to.
Wrastlemondu is offline  
post #45 of 46 (permalink) Old 01-03-2018, 07:03 AM
Tag Teaming With James Ellsworth
 
SmackdownvsRAW2005's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,430
Points: 4,767
                     
Re: The Bottom Line - Should WWE recognize all of Flair's world title reigns?

Even if they recognized all of Flair's title reigns, they will still have Cena tie and break his record.
SmackdownvsRAW2005 is offline  
post #46 of 46 (permalink) Old 01-03-2018, 11:56 AM
Moron
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: The Deep South, Among Savage Beasts and Vermin
Posts: 4,945
Points: 16,094
                     
Re: The Bottom Line - Should WWE recognize all of Flair's world title reigns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by promoter2003 View Post


This is too basic of a way to look at it. The past does count because it is why certain things have gravity in the present. The masses sure thinks so or the new era wouldn't consistently be compared to the past. The Network WWE has also says otherwise or they wouldn't have bothered to go to all the trouble preserving the past to help the sell current products. Not recognizing history will give viewers the idea that what they are seeing now is pointless. You know how they market "Where Were You When" for WM moments and so on?

Then again your post is playing devil's advocate I suppose.


No, I'm not playing devil's advocate. They're storytellers telling the story in a way that will benefit them most, by that I mean make them the most money in the here and now. They have to decide what details are important to that story and what to leave out, what to highlight and what to downplay.

I saw a serious question the other day from someone asking if Asuka's "winning streak" will be broken if she's eliminated in the Women's RR. Now anyone paying attention knows they call Asuka "undefeated," which they define as "never been pinned or submitted," she doesn't have a winning streak, she's lost before in matches that had multiple women involved, that's how WWE bigs her up, though, that's a story they're telling.

What value did Undertaker's "streak" at WM have? He's not undefeated, never has been, he's lost to plenty of the people he's beaten at Mania, but that was a thing they were able to hype up and sell.

What value does Roman maineventing three Manias in a row have? Nothing, there's plenty of PPV's and shows in between Manias that he hasn't mainevented. They put over Mania as a big deal because it's the largest PPV, so they create a value to having some sort of streak there and they're able to sell that as a big deal.

Is it a bigger deal to have multiple title reigns, or a few long title reigns? There is no set value to that, they'll hype up whichever one sounds the most impressive for the performer they're referring to. Roman and Seth both have title reigns that have lasted 5 minutes and 3 minutes respectively. That's not an impressive sounding thing, it's not a selling point, they sell the number of title reigns for them. They'll sell the length of Brock's reign with the UC and call him the longest reigning UC, they sell that Finn's the first one, never mind that he held it less than a day.

If the storytellers find more value in Cena surpassing Ric Flair, Flair had only 17 title reigns, they'll "count" whichever ones they need to, if there's more value in Ric being a 22 time champion, he'll retroactively be one and they'll find a way to tell the story that counts that, too.

Cathleen McCollough found a lot of value in highlighting Julius Caesar's relationship with Brutus' mother. Historically we know about it from one note that she wrote him, his relationships with his wives are much more well known, but those are given short shrift compared to what she could imagine about the first relationship because that's the one that would sell the most and make the most money.

WWE's the same, nothing's real, nothing matters until they say it matters, it's a historical fiction that's constantly being revised. DX's invasion of WCW was a great big deal, did you know that? I do now, I just watched a network special about it. I remember it being barely a blip at the time, I mostly watched WCW, though. If WCW was still telling the stories, it never would have happened at all, or it would be a joke right now, whichever one had the most value.
Asmodeus is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome