Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,945 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I mean in storyline? Naomi had to relinquish her title because she wasnt able to defend it in 30 and yet Lesnar is getting a free pass? Things like this are killing the sport if you ask me, why some rules apply only to some people and not to everyone?? Again im talking in storyline.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
Because they need to keep fucking Reigns for next year WM.:deanfpalm:deanfpalm. Summerslam is too bad for giving Reigns his final coronation. #WWELogic
So instead of having a short reign, Brock is gonna have it for 1 year. And Brock is a part-timer which means the normal rules doesn't apply to him.
Jesus, Vince needs to retire, he is burying RAW with this shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lesnar fan1

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
Because his contract is 5 million dollars and he's the fucking BROCK LESNAR.
Yeah, a former UFC fighter who was caught taking drugs and can't draw a dime for WWE. He is over with some fans but nobody watches WWE for Bork. Brock received 12 million last year for several minutes which bored the hell out of me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,999 Posts
Consistency isn't the WWE's strong suit in case you had not noticed. They only bring up rules when it suits them best.

Who else remembers the days when not only did a champion have to defend every 30 days, but the champion had to have at least 1 successful title defense in order to EARN their rematch clause.

Nope, not anymore. How else are they going to pointlessly drag out feuds without putting any thought into things?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,945 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Consistency isn't the WWE's strong suit in case you had not noticed. They only bring up rules when it suits them best.

Who else remembers the days when not only did a champion have to defend every 30 days, but the champion had to have at least 1 successful title defense in order to EARN their rematch clause.

Nope, not anymore. How else are they going to pointlessly drag out feuds without putting any thought into things?
I agree, thats why no matter how great todays wrestlers are WWE still suck. Consistency was key to the quality of the business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,790 Posts
All of these "Rules" are only brought out to further storylines when they are needed. People often pass the 30 day limit without defending titles, it's just when someone is genuinely injured and it hurts the angle to have them not wrestling - or they can't even appear on TV, then "creative" have to re-think.

Plus of course, Bork has WWE over a barrel. He contractually ensured the win over Goldberg, and strong-armed his way into the Universal Championship. His contract also dictates that he only appears a few times per year, for his ridiculous amount of money, so WWE have no choice but to keep him off screen.

Imagine a baseball team contractually forced to hire a star pitcher, but a pitcher that insists on massive money per appearance, and minimal effort when he DOES appear. There's not a team in the land that would stand for that shit. Yet, it's what Vince is allowing Bork to do - and has allowed him to do for years now.

Vince is a fool, and Lesnar is a money-grabbing bitch that has absolutely no regard for the title he holds, nor the company he works for. Not even Hogan held the company to ransom like this, for such a sustained amount of time. It's a fucking disgrace.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,945 Posts
Naomi couldn't defend her title, Brock can. It'd be funny if they had a segment where Angle brought up the thirty day rule to Heyman and he laughed in his face and dared him to try and make Brock defend it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,194 Posts
At this point they should just forget about that title. If Michael Cole shuts up and stops mentioning it every time Balor comes out I wouldn't remember it anyway. Just flush it down the toilet and move on.
 

·
WF's #1 Mox fan.
Joined
·
23,551 Posts
At this point they should just forget about that title. If Michael Cole shuts up and stops mentioning it every time Balor comes out I wouldn't remember it anyway. Just flush it down the toilet and move on.
They literally just announced a fatal 5 way for the #1 contender for that title. I doubt they're gonna forget about it :lol


I hate that 30 day rule cos WWE is so inconsistent with it. Either use it or don't use it, don't flip flop. Brock should have been stripped of the title already lol.
 

·
Bleep, bloop, bloam, goodbye to your home.
Joined
·
7,761 Posts
Because rules only apply when WWE wants them to apply.

Trish Stratus f.e before she lost the title to Mickie James was out for a while with an injury and sure as hell couldn't defend the title for over 30 days at one point. They did nothing.

I'm sure there's been WWE champions too who have held title and not defended it over 30 days... I think Goldberg qualifies on that category?
 

·
I'll take you down the only road I've ever been do
The Icon That Can Still Go
Joined
·
52,779 Posts
Because the whole idea of having a part timer as World Champion is a disaster in and of itself. So, who cares about the "rules?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,742 Posts
This is why I don't see how much of a business profit Brock brings to the company. I do really hate how inconsistent the WWE can be with their rules like the 30 day Title Defense. They use it perfectly at times, and then ignore it for stuff like this. Even Deam Ambrose didn't defend his US Title that often when he had it for a long time with the Shield.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19,333 Posts
All professional wrestling rules are props for storyline purposes. The inconsistency sucks but that's what you get with professional wrestling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zrc
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top