Joined
·
501 Posts
I'm not going to lie. When Santino almost won the rumble last night, I was totally hoping he would. I mean the IWC would've had various reactions likely including "What the fuck?" and inevitably I think the issue that would've been expressed with him is that he lacks credibility in terms of a WWE Title run, but what exactly is it that makes a credible champion?
I guess part of me is just a little frustrated with hearing that Orton's/Nexus's/Swagger's/etc credibility is destroyed, etc, etc. WWE can push whoever they want to realistically, and it confuses me as to why it seems like today we worry about something like a champion's "credibility"
I just don't remember ever thinking: "(Wrestler's Name) isn't ready yet, they should put him in a big feud for the (Random Midcard) Title." in the late 90s or even, I would say, early 2000s.
When Maven managed to eliminate the Undertaker from the Royal Rumble, or even beat him for the hardcore championship, I don't remember ever concerning myself with the thought of "Oh no, Taker's never going to see the main event again after losing to a sh*t like Maven!"
Given, that's a midcard title, but nonetheless I just feel like there was such an unpredictability about the WWE that even a guy like Maven could beat Taker if he got lucky. Even a guy viewed as a jobber could hang with the main eventers and seem, "credible" albeit with a .01% chance of winning a major title.
I definitely don't see it like this now and I'm not sure if it's an IWC invention, or if it's just overtly simplified booking or what...
Does anyone else feel the same way?
I guess part of me is just a little frustrated with hearing that Orton's/Nexus's/Swagger's/etc credibility is destroyed, etc, etc. WWE can push whoever they want to realistically, and it confuses me as to why it seems like today we worry about something like a champion's "credibility"
I just don't remember ever thinking: "(Wrestler's Name) isn't ready yet, they should put him in a big feud for the (Random Midcard) Title." in the late 90s or even, I would say, early 2000s.
When Maven managed to eliminate the Undertaker from the Royal Rumble, or even beat him for the hardcore championship, I don't remember ever concerning myself with the thought of "Oh no, Taker's never going to see the main event again after losing to a sh*t like Maven!"
Given, that's a midcard title, but nonetheless I just feel like there was such an unpredictability about the WWE that even a guy like Maven could beat Taker if he got lucky. Even a guy viewed as a jobber could hang with the main eventers and seem, "credible" albeit with a .01% chance of winning a major title.
I definitely don't see it like this now and I'm not sure if it's an IWC invention, or if it's just overtly simplified booking or what...
Does anyone else feel the same way?