how could you occupy them all on the same brand without things getting stale?
Isn't the exact opposite true? A split makes things stale. If it was one brand, the possibilities become endless.
It was stupid when WCW had Nitro and Thunder, and even worse when Mcmahon did it because he did it when having a monopoly on the sport.
I do agree that it does not mean a better quality program. It would still have its faults, but you would have a wider variety of matches/feuds, and yes the roster would most certainly decrease.
LIke D said though, the cream rises to the top. In the early/mid 80s Crockett had a massive roster spanning the NWA territories. It probably played a role in the coming bankruptcy, but that's beside the point. NWA always had top notch feuds going, and when one got stale, they threw you for a loop and brought someone else in of equal stature. A perfect example of this is in the mid 80s when their tag team division was just loaded with legendary teams, but feuds were being recycled and they brought in Rude and him and Ragin Bull won the tag belts out of the blue, became much hated heels, and had a decent title run before it reverted back to the previous teams.
The misconception is that the big guys even need the belt
This is a really good point and its always overlooked. This goes back decades, probably before I even started watching in the early 80s. The greatest example of this is The Road Warriors. Considered by most to be the greatest tag team ever, but what few remember is the fact that during their prime after leaving AWA, they did NOT hold any tag titles, and there were two tag titles(World and National, and National changed to U.S. in 86) in the NWA at the time. Their two biggest feuds at the time(The Russians, The Midnight Express) did not result in any title changes, and both those teams lost the belts during that time frame, to other teams. Hell, their feud with Tully and Arn back in 87 didn't even result in a title change. Their first(and only) NWA tag title reign happened in 88, THREE years after joining NWA.
The point being, they were bigger than any title. Whether as heels or not, they were just so over with crowds in any federation that you could use your belts on other teams while still maintaining focus on them.
You could say the same for Flair and Hogan. during their prime, neither men needed those belts surgically attached to them, especially Hogan. Tons of talent got buried in WWF due to Hogan having the belt four years straight and also not allowing the IC title to rotate very often(only 3 IC champions during Hogan's 1st title reign).
Bundy could have been a monster heel for a lengthy period of time had Mcmahon allowed a title change. Instead, he loses at WMII and there's just nowhere else for the feud to go. Bundy drops way down the card before leaving a year or so later, and his career never recovered.
Savage should have had the belt not long after arriving at WWF. He won the IC title fairly quickly, but should have won the world title instead, either from Hogan or Bundy.
In 87 after the legendary Steamboat-Savage match, Steamboat should have immediately been given a title shot. His career hit the stratosphere at that point and Mcmahon should have pulled the trigger.
Keeping the belt on Hogan during this phase made it too stale and predictable. He didn't even need the belt. I guess it was a way of making Hulkamania invincible and Mcmahon probably didn't want to
**** with the successful formula, but WWF would have been much better at the time with that belt changing hands several times. It really bogged down the PPVs and Saturday Night's Main Event because you knew that no matter who he faced, he wasn't losing.
People like Hogan, Flair, Triple H, Undertaker, Austin,etc. don't need a world title.
Wrestlers like King Kong Bundy, Nikita Koloff, Steamboat, Savage, Bret Hart, etc. do need it.
Home
Search
Calendar
Login
Register