The Enigmatic Failure?

[TheOneBigWill]

While I've done more than my fair share of holding C.M. Punk down as a credible World Heavyweight Champion, the shocking fact is he defended and retained the Championship, much less held it, more times and longer than Jeff Hardy. Dispite Hardy being pushed to become a World Champion harder.

So, the question begs to be asked.. was Jeff Hardy a failure to the Heavyweight Championship scene? He ultimately had a run of just over a month, and roughly Pay per view to Pay perview.

He didn't (to my knowledge) defend the Championship at all on Smackdown between Armageddon & Royal Rumble, and ultimately couldn't overcome all the "accidents" that were happening to him, resulting in his Brother's apparent actions to continue holding him down. While it was storyline for Hardy to lose the title, I ask the question again.. was Jeff Hardy ultimately, a failure as Heavyweight Champion?

In my opinion, I'm going to honestly say yes. I don't think a Hardy/Hardy feud could've been supported by the World title, but I do believe Hardy could've done more in the month reign he had, instead of randomly being "injured" or not at the Smackdown events in a wrestling manner.

C.M. Punk wrestled every week he was Champion, more or less, and while he was made to look weak and pathetic, at least he was trying, which is far more than Jeff Hardy did as Champion.

So, what are everyone's opinions and thoughts on the roughly one month Championship reign that was Jeff Hardy?

 

[Rusty]

Will, how can you call Jeff Hardy a failure as a champion when it clearly wasn't up to him when he wanted to appear on TV or not? He was being involved in a big storyline so he needed to pretend to be "hurt" so some people would believe that the storyline is legitimate. It wasn't Jeff's fault that he only had one single match before losing the title and it was in a tag team match to my belief. The WWE really let me down here. What was the point of pushing Jeff Hardy for all of 2008, have him finally win the title in shocking fashion, only to lose it a month later to the guy he won it off?

Don't even get me started with these WWE Title changes. From Triple H, to Edge, to Jeff Hardy to Edge. ALL in the space of two fricken months. And how was Jeff not trying as champion when he was hardly on TV? Don't diss Hardy for not appearing on the show, diss the way he was booked instead. And I think a Hardy vs Hardy match for the WWE Championship would have been new and fresh and unique. Instead of those Triple H/Edge title reigns that I am very sick of.

I love it how nobody mentions how Edge won the title for a 7th time, in the space of 3 years. Don't even get me started on how ridiculous it is. Not one of those reigns was decent, and yet he's shoved down our throats a lot more than John Cena. But I guess he gets away with it because he's a heel, and because "he's the best heel and wrestler in the WWE". You smarks make me sick.

Bottom line is that Jeff Hardy's title reign could have been special, but the WWE fucked up here and they ruined yet another good opportunity. I'm losing faith in their booking at this point. I'm not even excited one bit for the Edge vs HHH clusterfuck we are going to see at Wrestlemania 25. Fuck you WWE.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Will, how can you call Jeff Hardy a failure as a champion when it clearly wasn't up to him when he wanted to appear on TV or not?

Uhm, I believe I can call him a failure the same way I called C.M. Punk a failure. Because both individuals were made to look like it. Booking or not, the Wrestler's themselves had opportunities when they were on camera to excite me, and honestly Punk did more than Hardy. But neither did enough for me to take them as a serious contender, let alone Champion, in the Heavyweight division.

He was being involved in a big storyline so he needed to pretend to be "hurt" so some people would believe that the storyline is legitimate.

Oh.. you mean I was suppose to believe the pyro gave him 3rd degree burns, yet a week later he didn't even have a scratch on his face. Or I was suppose to believe that a Police video tape from a Cop car was just instantly released to the W.W.E. so they could use the footage? Hmmm.. damn me and my brain for not being melted.

It wasn't Jeff's fault that he only had one single match before losing the title and it was in a tag team match to my belief.

Nope. I'd say it was the drugs. And all the bumps giving him such wear and tear to the point of not being able to properly be on each show.

The WWE really let me down here.

It's okay Rusty, they've let me down several times. I've learned to live with it. You'll be okay when another diva poses for Playboy.

What was the point of pushing Jeff Hardy for all of 2008, have him finally win the title in shocking fashion, only to lose it a month later to the guy he won it off?

My guess is to give all the "smarks" what they wanted, in a title reign from their beloved Jeff Hardy. Only for W.W.E. creative to then say "Okay, enough of this shit, let's put it back on a real Champion."

Don't even get me started with these WWE Title changes. From Triple H, to Edge, to Jeff Hardy to Edge. ALL in the space of two fricken months.

three monthes, Rusty, three monthes.

And how was Jeff not trying as champion when he was hardly on TV?

Well, not being ON television would be a good start. And having to add in "gimmicks" to his one and only title defense would be another.

Don't diss Hardy for not appearing on the show, diss the way he was booked instead.

Damn you C.M. Punk! Oh.. bookers. Sorry.

And I think a Hardy vs Hardy match for the WWE Championship would have been new and fresh and unique. Instead of those Triple H/Edge title reigns that I am very sick of.

Yeah, cause that's what "I" would've wanted headlining MY WrestleMania. Mr. Unreliable and Mr. Unentertaining.. battling to keep me awake long enough to watch as one falls into an ever decreasing in value Heavyweight Championship.

I love it how nobody mentions how Edge won the title for a 7th time

I mentioned it. He's now among the elite, better than The Rock AND Steve Austin!

in the space of 3 years.

Even more impressive! That means he's a true Champion, to have done it that many times in that short of space.

Don't even get me started on how ridiculous it is.

Hey, wait, who.. don't go there Rusty..

Not one of those reigns was decent

Oh shit, now you've done it..

and yet he's shoved down our throats a lot more than John Cena.

What the fuck are you talking about?! John Cena has been shoved down our throats for well over a couple years while being the Champion most of that time. He barely sold any moves, he's made a horrible movie, and another is on it's way. He can't keep the fuck out of the spotlight, and he hasn't added anything new to his moveset, outside of a leg drop from the top rope. He hasn't changed his look, outside of adding mudd-flaps on his shorts, and making about 20 new t-shirts all with the same exact slogan, only in multiple colors to fool the morons.

Meanwhile, Edge has single handedly been carrying Smackdown for the past, oh, 3 years. He's been their Champion because he actually deserves the belt. He's constantly in an storyline that makes you dispise him even more. (which, last time I checked is what a heel is suppose to do) And he puts on very entertaining matches with everyone he wrestles. (Including playing dead against C.M. Punk)

But I guess he gets away with it because he's a heel

Well, Edge and Cena seem to get roughly the same sized boo's. Which one warrants being boo'd because they're a heel, and which one is failing at doing his job as a face? And how does this have anything to do with what the topic is about?

and because "he's the best heel and wrestler in the WWE".

Well, if you believe that, why are you arguing about it?

You smarks make me sick.

AGREED! If it wasn't for them, guys like C.M. Punk & Jeff Hardy wouldn't of even been IN the Main Event, much less former worthless Champions!

Bottom line is that Jeff Hardy's title reign could have been special

You're right. If they really wanted to sell the Jeff Hardy/bad luck storyline, they would've killed him off. In my opinion, Hardy fucked up everything by wanting to live. Selfish prick.

but the WWE fucked up here and they ruined yet another good opportunity.

No, Hardy screwed up.. not W.W.E., they tried killing him off. Hardy refused. Well, that's what WZ will report in about two months, long after this storyline is no longer interesting anyways.

I'm losing faith in their booking at this point.

Agreed. Who the fuck thought Rey Mysterio lasting that long in the Royal Rumble would ever be believeable.. AGAIN?!

I'm not even excited one bit for the Edge vs HHH clusterfuck we are going to see at Wrestlemania 25.

Well.. I suppose you were also completely disappointed that the W.W.E. came through on not supporting Christian's return last night.

Fuck you WWE.

Fuck you C.M. Punk! right? right!

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

In all fairness, the smarks were not the reason that Hardy was champ. It was the fact that he is the most over babyface in the business right now. Why do you think the Matt heel turn sucked all of the energy out of building last night? Because people WANT to see Jeff succeed and carry the belt. But, I'm sure you could have grasped that from him getting the biggest pop of the night (with the exception of RVD).

Failure as a champ? I don't think you can honestly compare Punk and Hardy here. Punk had the belt for a lot of the summer (defended it at least 3 ppvs...if Unforgiven is included)...Jeff held it for one (not including Armageddon, where he merely won it). The fact remains this: Jeff is involved in the most interesting storyline on Smackdown, while Punk was always a 2nd rate attraction to other stuff going on during Raw. Therefore, I don't think the two are even comparable.


*Edit: When I made this post...I hadn't actually seen Jeff's entrance. Looking back on it, it wasn't the biggest reaction of the night. But to his defense...he's been getting mad reactions for a year, and he was getting quite a bit of cheers during the match itself.*

 

[tehblogger]

Ahem. There is a fundamental difference between the title reigns of Jeff Hardy and Punk. Triple H was not on Punk's show. He was on Hardy's show. In the weeks in which Hardy should have been the fucking champion, Triple H booked himself to wrestle the entire fucking show looking like Christopher Reeve on roids. Hardy was sidelined. This is not his fault. HHH would not drop the belt to Hardy, would not get pinned by Hardy, and clearly despises Hardy for being more over than he is.

Hardy's run with the belt sucked, yes. That is due entirely to Triple H and his backstage manipulations. It was fair enough to go after Punk, but not Hardy.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

The way I look at the question of success vs failure as a champion right now is the difference between Edge and CM Punk.

Both Edge and Punk won their first titles in surprising fashion. Maybe we saw Hardy's coming ahead of time, but nonetheless, the first title reign was a surprising, "let's wait and see" situation.

Edge was a transitional champ at first, and his reign didn't last very long. Same could possibly be said for Punk. The question with Hardy is whether the impending feud with Matt Hardy will dominate his world, or if he'll keep his eyes partially onth WWE Title as well. With Undertaker and Big Show entering into an apparent feud, only Kozlov and Triple H remain true contenders to the WWE Title, other than Hardy.

So it remains to be seen if Jeff is a failure. We'll start to know within 6 months.

 

[Shocky]

Woo Hoo, Triple H is being blamed for the oppresion of Jeff Hardy, and I had nothing to dow ith starting it.

In all fairness, if anyone comes in here bashing CM Punk and the WWE not "trusting" him with the title at Unforgiven and taking him out of the match, blah blah blah, then goes onto defend Jeff Hardy is out of their mind. CM Punk was taken out of one match, after defeating JBL and Batista in consecutive title matches, and I still argue that Punk was taken out of that match so he can still have credibility.

Jeff Hardy was taken out of everything since he's become champion, to protect how weak Jeff Hardy actually is. Jeff Hardy had a goo dmatch with Edge at the Rumble, and I'm not going to deny that. I hold that fact more to the amazing chemistry that the whole EC Hardy boy quadrant have developed over a decade as opposed to ability.

Look, Jeff Hardy was virtually absent from Smackdown. He even got the JR sit down interview segment, away from a live crowd, and with the benefit of a weeks worth of editing, and his promos were simply awful.

Enjoy it Jeff Hardy fans. This was your title reign, be happy that Jeff Hardy can call himself a former WWE champion, something he doesn't deserve. Clearly the WWE doesn't trust the guy, and simply gave him the belt as a one off. Hopefully the Hardy vs. Hardy feud keeps people distracted, and then we won't have to listen to the Hardy Rulz crap, give him the belt bullshit. Hardy stunk it up, the WWE didn't trust him, he was kept as far away from a live mic and a real match for as long as possible for a reason.

 

[My$terio_Fan]

First before I say anything else I am a huge Jeff Hardy fan. So maybe me being a huge Hardy mark may blind my opinion on this, who knows.

I don't see this as an epic failure quiet like the Punk reign. Yes Hardy only held the belt for a month, but his program was the main attraction on Smackdown unlike when CM Punk held the belt he was a side attraction to Cena, Orton, ect.

The Hardy storyline was the best thing on Smackdown and the fans seemed deeply interested in the whole angle. Unlike Edge's previous, pointless reign, or HHH's 5 months(or however long regin)which dragged and seemed pointless, Hardy's reign made sence and the fans reacted so.

I think, although his reign was short and he was kept off TV for a big part of it, the reign and the whole angle helped elevate Smackdown and get the fans caring again. And it really is too late to call Hardy a failure because if you would have judged Edge & Orton's first reigns(which were short lived)you might have felt that they lost their chances as well but both became multi timed champion. Don't count Hardy out let.

But then again maybe I'm just a blind Hardy mark grasping for straws, but I really think I'm not.

 

[klunderbunker]

I don't see it as a disappointment at all. Compare the two reigns and you can see that they're completely different. Hardy had the title put on him 6 weeks and was physically in the ring with it one time other than last night. Punk held it for 2-3 months and defended it at every ppv and wrestled on many tv shows. He was being showcased as champion while Hardy's reign was a part of a much bigger angle: the upcoming feud with Matt. Punk was the case of throwing something to a wall to see if it sticks and it went decisively ok. Hardy's reign wasn't meant to be a long term thing. It was built up to cash in on the very beginning and the very end. Him winning and him losing the title are all that people remember or care about because both were shocking moments. Jeff is now a former world champion and he'll get it back eventually. As for the success of this reign, once Matt and Jeff's feud is over I'll let you know, because that's the payoff of the run.

 

[Sean Valjean]

I think Hardy only got the belt for two reasons. One, to silence all the fans that were complaining about him not winning the belt. Two, for the sole purpose of having Hardy vs Hardy. I'm assuming the WWE planned Matt's heel turn for months gave Hardy the belt ONLY to fuel the fued. After all, what better way to turn Matt heel than to cause his brother to lose his first world title, something he chased for a year.

Face it, Jeff's reign wasn't meant to be a good one as a fighting champion. It was just to get this fued off the ground, so I can't say he was a failure as champion since he wasn't meant to have a real title reign in the first place.

 

[Rusty]

Uhm, I believe I can call him a failure the same way I called C.M. Punk a failure. Because both individuals were made to look like it. Booking or not, the Wrestler's themselves had opportunities when they were on camera to excite me, and honestly Punk did more than Hardy. But neither did enough for me to take them as a serious contender, let alone Champion, in the Heavyweight division.

Jeff Hardy was barely even ON camera during his title reign. So how could he impress you if he was only show once or twice? CM Punk did cut a good promo with JBL as champion, it wasn't fantastic, but it was decent at least. The WWE wanted them to look like underdogs and failures, it simply cannot be blamed on the roleplayers (superstars).

Oh.. you mean I was suppose to believe the pyro gave him 3rd degree burns, yet a week later he didn't even have a scratch on his face. Or I was suppose to believe that a Police video tape from a Cop car was just instantly released to the W.W.E. so they could use the footage? Hmmm.. damn me and my brain for not being melted.

Are you forgetting that the WWE now has a PG rating? The kiddies would have believed that angle.

Nope. I'd say it was the drugs. And all the bumps giving him such wear and tear to the point of not being able to properly be on each show.

I blame the bookers, since you know... Hardy is clean.

It's okay Rusty, they've let me down several times. I've learned to live with it. You'll be okay when another diva poses for Playboy.

I doubt Maryse or Eve Torres will pose for Playboy this year

My guess is to give all the "smarks" what they wanted, in a title reign from their beloved Jeff Hardy. Only for W.W.E. creative to then say "Okay, enough of this shit, let's put it back on a real Champion."

Yep, let's put it back on the guy who hasn't had a decent reign yet. Let's put it back on the guy that shouldn't have lost the belt in the fucking first place. If the WWE really wanted to give Jeff a proper title reign, he should have defeated Edge at Wrestlemania for the title. It would have been much more successful.

three monthes, Rusty, three monthes.

It doesn't change the fact that the title is a hot potato

Well, not being ON television would be a good start. And having to add in "gimmicks" to his one and only title defense would be another.

The gimmick was allowed so Matt Hardy could make his heel turn...

Damn you C.M. Punk! Oh.. bookers. Sorry.

I forgive you.

Yeah, cause that's what "I" would've wanted headlining MY WrestleMania. Mr. Unreliable and Mr. Unentertaining.. battling to keep me awake long enough to watch as one falls into an ever decreasing in value Heavyweight Championship.

No, you misunderstood me. A Jeff Hardy vs Matt Hardy match for the title at No Way Out would have been good. It's not Wrestlemania worthy, but it would be good for a fresh ppv main event. Plus, it would sell.

I mentioned it. He's now among the elite, better than The Rock AND Steve Austin!

Yeah, but Rock and Austin didn't have to rely on gimmick matches to put on classics, did they? And don't give me that Undertaker/Edge WM 24 crap, because that match was tremendiously overrated. Their gimmick matches were better. Coincidence?

Even more impressive! That means he's a true Champion, to have done it that many times in that short of space.

Yeah, but if Cena did it, you wouldn't be saying that. You'd probably say how you are so sick and tired of John Cena reigns as WWE Champion.

Hey, wait, who.. don't go there Rusty..

Oh, I did. And I just had to go that far.

Oh shit, now you've done it..

That's not his fault the reigns weren't decent, I'm blaming the bookers. You should try doing that too.

What the fuck are you talking about?! John Cena has been shoved down our throats for well over a couple years while being the Champion most of that time. He barely sold any moves, he's made a horrible movie, and another is on it's way. He can't keep the fuck out of the spotlight, and he hasn't added anything new to his moveset, outside of a leg drop from the top rope. He hasn't changed his look, outside of adding mudd-flaps on his shorts, and making about 20 new t-shirts all with the same exact slogan, only in multiple colors to fool the morons.

Meanwhile, Edge has single handedly been carrying Smackdown for the past, oh, 3 years. He's been their Champion because he actually deserves the belt. He's constantly in an storyline that makes you dispise him even more. (which, last time I checked is what a heel is suppose to do) And he puts on very entertaining matches with everyone he wrestles. (Including playing dead against C.M. Punk)

Cena wasn't champion for over a year in 2007/2008. John Cena is one of the best move sellers in the company. His movie was good and entertaining. And well, why wouldn't he be in the spotlight? He is the face of the whole damn company. That's something Edge isn't. And he is a great wrestler, when was the last Cena match that absolutely sucked? Yeah, I can't think of any either. His look doesn't need to be changed. Why change a good thing?

Yeah, well you said that Cena was the champion on Raw for the past few years, but when he does it, he is being "shoved down our throats and always in the fucking spotlight". But when Edge does it "he carries the whole damn show, he deserves the belt, and he puts on good matches all the time". Will, are you so blind because of your love for Edge and hatred for Cena? And unlike Edge, Cena doesn't need a gimmick to put on a classic match. Bottom line - Cena > Edge. And don't even get me started on the fact that Edge wouldn't be a main eventer if it wasn't for John Cena.

Well, Edge and Cena seem to get roughly the same sized boo's. Which one warrants being boo'd because they're a heel, and which one is failing at doing his job as a face? And how does this have anything to do with what the topic is about?

You're missing my point. You are disrespecting Cena for having the same amount of air time as Edge. Yet, you praise Edge because of the same reason you diss Cena. Hypocrite much?

Well, if you believe that, why are you arguing about it?

I don't believe that, hence the sarcasm.

AGREED! If it wasn't for them, guys like C.M. Punk & Jeff Hardy wouldn't of even been IN the Main Event, much less former worthless Champions!

Umm... I have no idea where you are going with this statement.

You're right. If they really wanted to sell the Jeff Hardy/bad luck storyline, they would've killed him off. In my opinion, Hardy fucked up everything by wanting to live. Selfish prick.

That's just evil Will. Don't sink that low.

No, Hardy screwed up.. not W.W.E., they tried killing him off. Hardy refused. Well, that's what WZ will report in about two months, long after this storyline is no longer interesting anyways.

I'm disappointed with you Will. It's not even the slightest bit funny.

Agreed. Who the fuck thought Rey Mysterio lasting that long in the Royal Rumble would ever be believeable.. AGAIN?!

Yeah, replace Edge with Mysterio in that situation and you wouldn't have dissed that.

Well.. I suppose you were also completely disappointed that the W.W.E. came through on not supporting Christian's return last night.

Sort of. I want him to return, but not in the main event of Wrestlemania 25.

Fuck you C.M. Punk! right? right!

The Punk bashing is very old, Will. He's a mid-carder now, so why diss him if he is "where he belongs"?

 

[TomSmithUK]

I don't think you can call Hardy's title a reign a failure for anything Jeff did. Despite some heavily editing arguing further up this board (and I mean wow, using extracts instead of the whole thing to change context is impressive, but makes your arguement look really lame. Why not just go the whole hog and invoke Godwin's law and really lose the arguement), the booking over this last month, has kept Jeff off TV.

I really feel that the title reign has been a failure, because of the way it has panned out. The whole thing felt rushed from the beginning. When Edge came back and won the title, that could've worked, had he not lost it straight to Jeff a month later. This Matt Hardy turn, could've worked so much better if, at Armageddon, they'd booked it so HHH is out of the match (outside interference, spear/swanton, whatever), Jeff is on the brink of winning, and Matt screws him. Furthering the whole 'brass ring' thing they had going. This also made more sense, why, pray tell, if Matt attacked Jeff back in November(?) has he waited until January to cost him the belt? Why wouldn't he cost him it the next month? Why wait to let him win it, then take it off him? You turn Matt before the Rumble, which means Edge and HHH (who are essentially having a feud already with the HHH/Vickie promos every week) can get it out of the way before Mania. Have Jeff and Matt duke it out at the Rumble. Matt again is fuming, really turn the heat up in the feud, as wooden as these guys are in promo, having them against each other could work so much better as they can use all the cheap shots in the world on each other. Have them have their now much expected Ladder Match at NWO with the #1 contendership at Mania up for grabs. This leads to the most over babyface in the WWE to win the title at Mania.

I know a lot of you don't like Jeff, and don't think he deserves to be champion, but as the most over guy in the company, that would be one hell of a moment at Mania for everyone that did love him, which is probably a much bigger portion of the audience in all honesty. And that firework celebration thing, would have made so much more sense at Wrestlemania, how many times does someone winning a title get that reception? Never, especially when the GM is married to the guy who he took it off? Why would she allow that to happen on that show?

 

[Jane]

I am going to wait and decide after the Matt-Jeff fued because it turns out the last year of building Jeff as a title contender all led up to him winning and losing, starting a fued with his brother. If the fued is short and boring, ya, Jeff failed. The whole thing serves no purpose but to give the fans a pop when Jeff finally won. If it is an awesome fued, we really won't have to worry because I think both Hardys will be built as title contenders. The title reign was a prop in what will hopefully be a great fued.

 

[thraxiusrex]

I'm going to have to agree with Jane on this, because the Hardy feud has the potential to be huge. I mean, I think it will benefit Matt more than Jeff, because with Matt screwing Jeff out of his belt (sounds kind of kinky ...), it gives Matt kind of a quasi-title picture rub.

Look at it this way: remember the HBK-Y2J feud? Why was Jericho given the title? My immediate reaction when watching the PPV, was that they were going to put the title on Chris as a way to ratchet up the drama for one last match with HBK. They were putting the title on what was clearly the top drawing feud at the time. The end result was that it solidified Jericho as being in the main event/title picture and put HBK there, too (not as a contender at the moment, but still involved with the current title storyline).

So if the Hardy vs. Hardy feud is as epic as it should be, I wouldn't doubt the title somehow floating back into the picture before it's said and done. Thus, the entire storyline for Jeff finally winning the title will have been a success, akin to how the thing with Jericho/HBK/Batista developed into something more over time.

 

[jazwaz1]

He was a different kind of champion - one that was one for the sake of a storyline and to make it better. And guess what? It worked. He wasn't champion so he could defend it. If he were to defend it, they would've given him the gold long before the SL of FINALLY reaching to the top started.

The storyline was that Jeff needed to reach the brass ring but couldn't quite get it. Fans love and cake in that type of shit. He finally gets it - he's the happiest man in the world. Fans are just cheering him to all hell. In the background, Matt sees Jeff with the title and gets all kinds of jealous. Jeff fucks up things, Matt gets tired of having to wonder if Jeff will screw up again. Throughout the title reign, they constantly played 'I am/was a screwup and me getting this title showcases screwups can change for the better, yadda yadda'. Matt doesn't believe that shit, fucks up things for his brother... and he costs him the title. Now that means something.

Now had Jeff NOT had the title, there would have been no purpose for a Matt Hardy heel turn. Costing arguably one of WWE's biggest fans the world title he had worked so long for will give him instant heel heat. Without it, the general audience may have had a less of a reason to care.

So was the title run a failure? Absolutely not. It served a PURPOSE and that's what people need to see. I didn't really explain this the way I wanted to, so I might if there's a response to this post.

 

[Papa Shango]

I think it's funny that Rusty is saying that out of Edge's seven championship reigns, not when of them was any good, when in reality, IF we do assume that Edge is yet to have a decent reign, it can be blamed on the same thing that Rusty is trying to blame Hardy'd failure on; the bookers.

True, Edge hasn't really had a whole lot of long title reigns, but what does length have to do with how good a title reign is? Every Edge title reign has been interesting.

First Reign- MITB, ended Cena's 280 day reign, and had a live sex celebration that drew nearly a 6.0 segment rating. Second Reign- There was a decent chance that Edge could beat Cena and send him to SD!, one of the best feuds of 2006, and a fantastic TLC match. Third, Fourth and Fifth Title reigns- Jumped from Raw to SD! and used MITB to beat Undertaker, igniting a long awaited, highly anticipated feud that gave us some of the best stuff to be seen on SD! the last near two years, and a trio of new age instant classic matches. I between the 3rd and 4th reigns, Edge was briefly out with an injury. But that didn't slow him down a bit in having one the best years of his career. Those three title reigns together string along one the best heel runs seen since Triple H dominated RAW in 2003.

Sixth reign- Won the title simply so he could drop it to Jeff Hardy, so that Triple H wouldn't have to. This is the one reign of really no note, unless you wanna include Edge being the prime suspect in Jeff Hardy's string of accidents/attacks. Hmmm... Edge's one stinker of a reign, was booked to occur all for the sake of giving Jeff Hardy a championship reign. Such a revelation sort of makes Rusty's complaint rather ironic.

Fact is, Edge gets the title reigns for the same reason as Triple H and John Cena, he's bankable, he's reliable, and he's an entertaining champion. Jeff Hardy on the other hand, was ONLY given the title so his fans could have their defining "reached the top" moment, and would stop whining. But once he won the title, he was not entertaining. His promos are terrible and he doesn't know how to get a storyline over. He will NOT get the title again until he's proven to be reliable. And because of THAT, he is a failure of a champ. The length of his title reign means nothing.

Steve Austin held the WWE Championship 6 times from March 1998- December 2001. The Rock held 7 between November 1998- July 2002. When you look at it, none of those 13 title reigns were very long. However, The Rock and Steve Austin are and will forever be revered as two of wrestling's all time great champions. So you cannot knock Edge for holding the titles briefly 7 times, seeing as those seven title reigns all did something for him. My point is, "long" and "decent" don't go hand in hand in terms of title reigns. Just ask Kevin Nash. Longest reign of the 90's, still didn't do anything noteworthy.

My guess is, Edge's 7+ title run will be remembered like Austin's. Jeff Hardy, however, has proven to be as good a champ as Diesel's. And for all you youngsters out there, that ain't a compliment.

 

[Papa Shango]

I think it's funny that Rusty is saying that out of Edge's seven championship reigns, not one of them was any good, when in reality, IF we do assume that Edge is yet to have a decent reign, it can be blamed on the same thing that Rusty is trying to blame Hardy'd failure on; the bookers.

True, Edge hasn't really had a whole lot of long title reigns, but what does length have to do with how good a title reign is? Every Edge title reign has been interesting.

First Reign- MITB, ended Cena's 280 day reign, and had a live sex celebration that drew nearly a 6.0 segment rating. Second Reign- There was a decent chance that Edge could beat Cena and send him to SD!, one of the best feuds of 2006, and a fantastic TLC match. Third, Fourth and Fifth Title reigns- Jumped from Raw to SD! and used MITB to beat Undertaker, igniting a long awaited, highly anticipated feud that gave us some of the best stuff to be seen on SD! the last near two years, and a trio of new age instant classic matches. I between the 3rd and 4th reigns, Edge was briefly out with an injury. But that didn't slow him down a bit in having one the best years of his career. Those three title reigns together string along one the best heel runs seen since Triple H dominated RAW in 2003.

Sixth reign- Won the title simply so he could drop it to Jeff Hardy, so that Triple H wouldn't have to. This is the one reign of really no note, unless you wanna include Edge being the prime suspect in Jeff Hardy's string of accidents/attacks. Hmmm... Edge's one stinker of a reign, was booked to occur all for the sake of giving Jeff Hardy a championship reign. Such a revelation sort of makes Rusty's complaint rather ironic.

Fact is, Edge gets the title reigns for the same reason as Triple H and John Cena, he's bankable, he's reliable, and he's an entertaining champion. Jeff Hardy on the other hand, was ONLY given the title so his fans could have their defining "reached the top" moment, and would stop whining. But once he won the title, he was not entertaining. His promos are terrible and he doesn't know how to get a storyline over. He will NOT get the title again until he's proven to be reliable. And because of THAT, he is a failure of a champ. The length of his title reign means nothing.

Steve Austin held the WWE Championship 6 times from March 1998- December 2001. The Rock held 7 between November 1998- July 2002. When you look at it, none of those 13 title reigns were very long. However, The Rock and Steve Austin are and will forever be revered as two of wrestling's all time great champions. So you cannot knock Edge for holding the titles briefly 7 times, seeing as those seven title reigns all did something for him. My point is, "long" and "decent" don't go hand in hand in terms of title reigns. Just ask Kevin Nash. Longest reign of the 90's, still didn't do anything noteworthy.

My guess is, Edge's 7+ title run will be remembered like Austin's. Jeff Hardy, however, has proven to be as good a champ as Diesel's. And for all you youngsters out there, that ain't a compliment.

 

[Rusty]

I think it's funny that Rusty is saying that out of Edge's seven championship reigns, not when of them was any good, when in reality, IF we do assume that Edge is yet to have a decent reign, it can be blamed on the same thing that Rusty is trying to blame Hardy'd failure on; the bookers.

True, Edge hasn't really had a whole lot of long title reigns, but what does length have to do with how good a title reign is? Every Edge title reign has been interesting.

First Reign- MITB, ended Cena's 280 day reign, and had a live sex celebration that drew nearly a 6.0 segment rating. Second Reign- There was a decent chance that Edge could beat Cena and send him to SD!, one of the best feuds of 2006, and a fantastic TLC match. Third, Fourth and Fifth Title reigns- Jumped from Raw to SD! and used MITB to beat Undertaker, igniting a long awaited, highly anticipated feud that gave us some of the best stuff to be seen on SD! the last near two years, and a trio of new age instant classic matches. I between the 3rd and 4th reigns, Edge was briefly out with an injury. But that didn't slow him down a bit in having one the best years of his career. Those three title reigns together string along one the best heel runs seen since Triple H dominated RAW in 2003.

Sixth reign- Won the title simply so he could drop it to Jeff Hardy, so that Triple H wouldn't have to. This is the one reign of really no note, unless you wanna include Edge being the prime suspect in Jeff Hardy's string of accidents/attacks. Hmmm... Edge's one stinker of a reign, was booked to occur all for the sake of giving Jeff Hardy a championship reign. Such a revelation sort of makes Rusty's complaint rather ironic.

Fact is, Edge gets the title reigns for the same reason as Triple H and John Cena, he's bankable, he's reliable, and he's an entertaining champion. Jeff Hardy on the other hand, was ONLY given the title so his fans could have their defining "reached the top" moment, and would stop whining. But once he won the title, he was not entertaining. His promos are terrible and he doesn't know how to get a storyline over. He will NOT get the title again until he's proven to be reliable. And because of THAT, he is a failure of a champ. The length of his title reign means nothing.

Steve Austin held the WWE Championship 6 times from March 1998- December 2001. The Rock held 7 between November 1998- July 2002. When you look at it, none of those 13 title reigns were very long. However, The Rock and Steve Austin are and will forever be revered as two of wrestling's all time great champions. So you cannot knock Edge for holding the titles briefly 7 times, seeing as those seven title reigns all did something for him. My point is, "long" and "decent" don't go hand in hand in terms of title reigns. Just ask Kevin Nash. Longest reign of the 90's, still didn't do anything noteworthy.

My guess is, Edge's 7+ title run will be remembered like Austin's. Jeff Hardy, however, has proven to be as good a champ as Diesel's. And for all you youngsters out there, that ain't a compliment.

Shango, you're getting off topic here. But nonetheless, in my opinion Edge's title reigns weren't anything special. Sure, he had some great matches whilst holding the title, but look at Randy Orton's 2007/2008 title reign and compare it to Edge's. My problem is that I think Edge has already held the title enough for now, and Smackdown desperately needs another heel who is capable enough to hold the WWE Championship. At the moment, apart from The Big Show, I can't see any heels who are good enough to be in the spotlight, which isn't Edge's fault.

My problem with Edge's current reign is that it began at the expense of Jeff Hardy. Yes, I know Jeff came out of that match looking strong (if you could call it that) because Edge needed Chavo and Matt Hardy to win the belt, but why push Jeff to the moon for a whole year, only to give him a totally worthless 1 month title reign. And yes you are right, I do blame the bookers for giving Edge too many title reigns, because unlike some people, I don't believe the superstars book themselves.

I won't deny that Edge is a draw, but remember, Jeff Hardy is over with the fans. You also claim that Jeff Hardy is unreliable. How can he be unreliable when he hasn't done anything of importance whilst holding the title except for basically giving a sit down interview? And the actual storyline was interesting, because of both superstars involved. Jeff Hardy is entertaining, otherwise he wouldn't have such great fan support. The guy is consistant in the ring and has worked his ass off since 2006.

In my opinion, he deserved a longer reign but obviously that was not the case as the WWE thought he wasn't ready to walk into Wrestlemania as a world champion.

 

[Papa Shango]

Shango, you're getting off topic here. But nonetheless, in my opinion Edge's title reigns weren't anything special. Sure, he had some great matches whilst holding the title, but look at Randy Orton's 2007/2008 title reign and compare it to Edge's.

I thought they were both really good.

My problem is that I think Edge has already held the title enough for now, and Smackdown desperately needs another heel who is capable enough to hold the WWE Championship.

They don't have one. Kozlov is close in my opinion, but not yet.

At the moment, apart from The Big Show, I can't see any heels who are good enough to be in the spotlight, which isn't Edge's fault.

Even Big Show isn't worth the title. He's proven in the past not to be a good champion. He was good as ECW champ, but the only noteworthy thing he's ever done as a World Champion is feud with Hogan VERY early on in his career (and ended in that terrible monster truck angle) and his much-maligned feud with the Big Bossman. Big Show is a good heel contender, but not a good heel champion. Edge IS a good heel champion, fantastic in fact, and THAT'S why he is consistently given the title.

My problem with Edge's current reign is that it began at the expense of Jeff Hardy.

Jeff Hardy's reign came at the expense of Edge. What's your point?

Yes, I know Jeff came out of that match looking strong (if you could call it that) because Edge needed Chavo and Matt Hardy to win the belt, but why push Jeff to the moon for a whole year, only to give him a totally worthless 1 month title reign.

Because Jeff fucked up. They WERE pushing him to the moon, and then he got suspended. He came back, and they essentially had to start over. He's lucky he even got the title for a month.

I won't deny that Edge is a draw, but remember, Jeff Hardy is over with the fans.

So was Eugene. But he never got the title.

You also claim that Jeff Hardy is unreliable. How can he be unreliable when he hasn't done anything of importance whilst holding the title except for basically giving a sit down interview?

He has a history of being unreliable. Drug use, behavioral issues, no showing events. And he has never once gotten a match or a feud over without spot monkey antics. That is the ONLY reason Jeff Hardy gets reactions. People don't pay to Jeff Hardy. People pay to see a guy near kill himself for a paycheck. That man just HAPPENS to be Jeff Hardy. The day Jeff Hardy can no longer do the crazy shit is the day his career is completely over, because NO ONE will care about him anymore.

And the actual storyline was interesting, because of both superstars involved.

The storyline was interesting because there was a mystery assailant that people assumed was going to be the returning Christian. Insert any popular face, thrown in an unknown attacker, and the story is interesting. This is a rare instance of the creative team doing something interesting for a change.

Jeff Hardy is entertaining, otherwise he wouldn't have such great fan support.

He does flippys. That's why he has such fan support. I'm not arguing that Jeff HArdy doesn't have any entertainment value. He just shouldn't be anywhere near the WWE Championship.

The guy is consistant in the ring and has worked his ass off since 2006.

He is thoroughly inconsistent, spotty, botches most of his moves, and has been suspended twice since he returned to the WWE.

In my opinion, he deserved a longer reign but obviously that was not the case as the WWE thought he wasn't ready to walk into Wrestlemania as a world champion.

He WASN'T ready to walk into the Royal Rumble as a World Champion, let alone Wrestlemania.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

No, Jeff Hardy's title reign was far from a failure. I will give you my reason for believing this by comparing Hardy's WWE championship reign with that of CM Punk's WHC reign.

Unlike Hardy's reign, it is my opinion that Punk's reign was a decision made by WWE creative in an attempt to spice things up on Raw. Although Punk cashing in his MITB briefcase and winning the WHC made for a shocking moment, it ended up backfiring on creative because they didn't consider the fact that casual fans would find him being World Heavyweight Champion on a show with much more popular stars than him quite contrived (if I remember correctly, when Punk was drafted over to RAW, most of the IWC thought that he would cash in his briefcase for a shot at the Intercontinental title, which would have seemed much more logical, considering that most fans just knew him as that guy from ECW who performs well in MITB matches). Consequently, Punk's reign turned out so horribly because WWE creative realized the idiocy of their decision without wanting to admit it.

On the other hand, it is my opinion that Hardy's reign was a direct reaction to the desires of the fans. Call Hardy a fuckup and a heroin addict all you want, but it is undeniable that people pay to see him. I don't think this was anymore evident than at Survivor Series, with legitimately pissed fans wondering where in the fuck Hardy was, only to find out that he had (kayfabe) been attacked in a hotel lobby (in hindsight, taking Hardy out of the match and giving the belt to Edge was probably a conciliatory gesture towards Edge for making him go to another show to lose the belt in a shameful fashion to a wrestler who was, at that point in time, a nobody). After the chorus of boos heard during the snoozefest that was HHH vs. Kozlov, I think it was evident to creative that they had yet again made a decision that didn't gibe well with the fans. Thus, in order to keep fans from becoming disillusioned with WWE over the belief that Hardy would never get the belt, they put the strap on him at Armageddon to show that they actually do care about what their patrons want.

In the end, Hardy's short reign was nothing more than a means to allay the fear of his fans that he would never get a championship run. Thus, I can't consider his run a failure as it is my belief that WWE had no intention (prior to Survivor Series) of putting the belt on Hardy before this year's Wrestlemania. Looking towards the future, I see him getting it back at Summerslam. It is this title reign that I will use to evaluate whether or not Hardy is a failure as a champion.

 

[MisterRob]

Oh.. you mean I was suppose to believe the pyro gave him 3rd degree burns, yet a week later he didn't even have a scratch on his face. Or I was suppose to believe that a Police video tape from a Cop car was just instantly released to the W.W.E. so they could use the footage? Hmmm.. damn me and my brain for not being melted.

I know you can't be bashing the WWE for being unrealistic in this storyline, with these examples, while being perfectly fine with the entire TNA Impact show lastnight, can you? Because I have to point out that both of Hardy's examples above are better then a group of wrestlers SOMEHOW taking over an entire show unchallenged (and I don't care that Foley came out half way through to change things, that only makes it less realistic). The MEM take over the announcing and no one does anything.. were they booking matches too? That makes a lot of sense! Booker T wrestling two referees.. that makes perfect sense! The MEM must have some clear stroke behind the scenes to be doing all this. Petey Williams forced to wrestle with a hand behind his back? Oh yes, that makes lots of sense. The entire show was one big load of shit taken in a toilet and unable to be flushed, because not one thing made any sense about it. Not to mention they rehashed something already done a long time ago, didn't do it anywhere near as good, and didn't make it anywhere near as believable.

The purpose of wrestling is to suspend disbelief, if you don't know that concept I don't see how you're watching wrestling. At least Hardy's examples were original and well done.

I mentioned it. He's now among the elite, better than The Rock AND Steve Austin!

The amount of title reigns doesn't make you one of the elite, its the content and the wrestler themselves that does that. I'm a fan of Edge, he's a great wrestler and will be known as being a top star for years to come, but he certainly is not better then the Rock or Austin. If that wasn't sarcasm then you're out of your mind.

What the fuck are you talking about?! John Cena has been shoved down our throats for well over a couple years while being the Champion most of that time. He barely sold any moves, he's made a horrible movie, and another is on it's way. He can't keep the fuck out of the spotlight, and he hasn't added anything new to his moveset, outside of a leg drop from the top rope. He hasn't changed his look, outside of adding mudd-flaps on his shorts, and making about 20 new t-shirts all with the same exact slogan, only in multiple colors to fool the morons.

Meanwhile, Edge has single handedly been carrying Smackdown for the past, oh, 3 years. He's been their Champion because he actually deserves the belt. He's constantly in an storyline that makes you dispise him even more. (which, last time I checked is what a heel is suppose to do) And he puts on very entertaining matches with everyone he wrestles. (Including playing dead against C.M. Punk)

You're totally biased here. Come on. To say Edge deserves the belt and John Cena doesn't is unbelievable. Despite critics and haters (and I have no real love for Cena either) he's the face of the WWE, he brings in ratings, he sells the most merchandise, and there is no debating the fact he deserves the belt and his spot just as much as Edge ever could. Your ass love for Edge is blinding you, clearly. Cena puts on entertaining matches with everyone he wrestles too, and to say otherwise is just lying. He doesn't need to have a huge moveset, just like Hogan didn't, to have entertaining matches and carry the spotlight.

Well.. I suppose you were also completely disappointed that the W.W.E. came through on not supporting Christian's return last night.

I loved the fact that Matt Hardy was the swerve and Christian didn't even show up. Kudos to the WWE there!



As for the purpose of this thread and its topic; I'm not sure you can call CM Punk or Jeff Hardy's title reigns "failures" because I think they did exactly what they were intended to do. Punk's was an experiment to allow WWE to gauge how he'd do in that role, with the title, and so how it could be a failure doesn't make any sense because they did just that.. got to see and judge what he'd be like as champion with THE title. Whether you enjoyed his title reign or not, found it worthy of your expectations or not, really doesn't matter as its merely opinion. I thought, if nothing else, it was a nice change. Jeff Hardy's reign wasn't meant to be all the things you seem to feel it should've been to be worthy, it was meant to merely push the storyline leading into Matt Hardy's heel turn. Thats it. You can't judge the reign on anything else because he wasn't given any time to showcase anything at all, and saying otherwise makes you have to turn a blind eye to the details of the storyline and how they set things up. So, both reigns did what the WWE intended them to do and they got what they wished out of them, so how is that a failure?

 

[Rusty]

I thought they were both really good.

I disagree. Orton faced almost everybody on the roster and was always entertaining without getting repetitive. Do I need to say that Randy Orton actually retained at Wrestlemania, something no other heel has done for a long time.

They don't have one. Kozlov is close in my opinion, but not yet.

Exactly, Smackdown has all these mid-carders who are heels but none of them are ready to be main eventers. It's quite sad.

Even Big Show isn't worth the title. He's proven in the past not to be a good champion. He was good as ECW champ, but the only noteworthy thing he's ever done as a World Champion is feud with Hogan VERY early on in his career (and ended in that terrible monster truck angle) and his much-maligned feud with the Big Bossman. Big Show is a good heel contender, but not a good heel champion. Edge IS a good heel champion, fantastic in fact, and THAT'S why he is consistently given the title.

How long ago was the Big Show the WWE Champion? At least 6 or 7 years ago to my knowledge, so things might be different now. And what exactly does it take to be a good heel champion? I personally thought it depends on the booking of the reign. Please elaborate.

Jeff Hardy's reign came at the expense of Edge. What's your point?

My point is that Hardy shouldn't have won the title if it was only going to be a one month reign.

Because Jeff fucked up. They WERE pushing him to the moon, and then he got suspended. He came back, and they essentially had to start over. He's lucky he even got the title for a month.

Hmm.... Edge and Randy Orton have been suspended before. How come they are so worthy of the title then? I fail to see your point.

So was Eugene. But he never got the title.

Eugene was a comedy character, just like Santino Marella. That's a rather poor example.

He has a history of being unreliable. Drug use, behavioral issues, no showing events. And he has never once gotten a match or a feud over without spot monkey antics. That is the ONLY reason Jeff Hardy gets reactions. People don't pay to Jeff Hardy. People pay to see a guy near kill himself for a paycheck. That man just HAPPENS to be Jeff Hardy. The day Jeff Hardy can no longer do the crazy shit is the day his career is completely over, because NO ONE will care about him anymore.

Well, he is apart of a company called World Wrestling Entertainment. And since he does the most important thing of all, entertaining the fans, then he obviously deserves his spot. And when was the last time he no showed an event? It was a long time ago to my knowledge. The whole spot monkey argument is just as old as the 5 move argument.

The storyline was interesting because there was a mystery assailant that people assumed was going to be the returning Christian. Insert any popular face, thrown in an unknown attacker, and the story is interesting. This is a rare instance of the creative team doing something interesting for a change.

Er no, people were interested in the storyline because the fans like Jeff Hardy and they wanted to know who attacked their beloved favourite. Replace Khali in that storyline and who would have honestly gave a fuck about that storyline?

He does flippys. That's why he has such fan support. I'm not arguing that Jeff HArdy doesn't have any entertainment value. He just shouldn't be anywhere near the WWE Championship.

That's based on your opinion. The fact is, he did win the WWE Championship. Hell, Khali even won the World Title at one stage, so did CM Punk. People say they shouldn't be near the WWE Title, but they sometimes are. We can't help that.

He is thoroughly inconsistent, spotty, botches most of his moves, and has been suspended twice since he returned to the WWE.

That's funny, I can't remember the last Jeff Hardy match that I didn't like. Is that because "I enjoy flippy's"?

He WASN'T ready to walk into the Royal Rumble as a World Champion, let alone Wrestlemania.

So based on your requirements the hold the title into Royal Rumble, the only options on Smackdown at this point are Edge and The Undertaker, right? I'm assuming you think Triple H shouldn't be near the title either, since most people on this forum seem to believe that.

 

[Papa Shango]

I disagree. Orton faced almost everybody on the roster and was always entertaining without getting repetitive.

Really? Cuz I thought the whole punting thing was old before he even won the title. And just because Orton faced several different wrestlers for his title doesn't mean he wasn't repetitive. Before he retained at Mania and came up with "The Age of Orton", every promo was "I beat him, him, him, and him. I'm unbeatable.' And that was what basically set up every one of his feuds in that reign. Edge, on the other hand, managed to come up with some very clever ideas. The Vickie marriage angle, using the Major Brothers as lookalikes to win the title. I could go on, but this is not the topic at hand.

Do I need to say that Randy Orton actually retained at Wrestlemania, something no other heel has done for a long time.

Triple H did it at WM19, but again, off topic.

My point is that Hardy shouldn't have won the title if it was only going to be a one month reign.

That's laughable. It's called a transitional title reign, and they happen all the time. Not that the title reign was altogether useless. It A) Gave the fans a moment they'd been waiting to see,even though they're such "take, take, take" people that a title reign wasn't good enough for them, it apparently needs to be a long title reign, even though very few people in history have been entrusted to a long title reign (Even The Rock and Austin never held the title for more than a couple months at a time). B) By having the "mystery attacker" cost Jeff the title it added an extra dimension to the angle and adds fuel to the fire leading to what is presumed to be a match at Mania. Fact is, Hardy fans should be happy that Hardy even got the title for a month, seeing as most other wrestlers they like more likely than not will never even get a sniff of the gold.

Hmm.... Edge and Randy Orton have been suspended before. How come they are so worthy of the title then? I fail to see your point.

Edge's suspension came and went at a time when he was off TV anyway. As for Orton, at the time that he won the title, I personally didn't believe it should have been done, because at the time he was still, in my eyes, an out of control, unreliable punk with behavioral problems. Eventually, he won me over, and it appears as if now he is more mature, and actually READY to have a show centered around him.

I currently view Jeff Hardy in the same way that I viewed Randy Orton in 2007. Not enough time has passed to see if he has changed, that he can be reliable, that he won't get fired. If he had done a good job in this mystery attacker feud, and had stayed clean through about til I'd say summertime, then maybe I'd have more faith in him. I still don't think he has that certain charisma that it takes to have a show centered around you like Cena or HHH or Orton or Edge, but he has the popularity and the entertainment value to be a main event player. I'd even go ahead at give him the belt at a major show like Summerslam. But I did not believe he was ready for any kind of title reign last year, and he most definitely is not ready to headline WM.

Eugene was a comedy character, just like Santino Marella. That's a rather poor example.

False, Eugene was over HUGE in 04. He even actually came close to winning the Title at one point, and for a second the crowd thought he had, and they popped big. They found Eugene incredibly entertaining, just like Jeff Hardy.

Er no, people were interested in the storyline because the fans like Jeff Hardy and they wanted to know who attacked their beloved favourite. Replace Khali in that storyline and who would have honestly gave a fuck about that storyline?

Well, I think Khali is still viewed as sort of a tweener, but damn right people would interested. Are you telling me you wouldn't be interested in the who the FUCK would be able to take out someone the size of The Great Khali?

That's based on your opinion. The fact is, he did win the WWE Championship. Hell, Khali even won the World Title at one stage, so did CM Punk. People say they shouldn't be near the WWE Title, but they sometimes are. We can't help that.

So you admit that Jeff HArdy doesn't belong anywhere near the WWE Championship.

That's funny, I can't remember the last Jeff Hardy match that I didn't like. Is that because "I enjoy flippy's"?

... Yes.

So based on your requirements the hold the title into Royal Rumble, the only options on Smackdown at this point are Edge and The Undertaker, right? I'm assuming you think Triple H shouldn't be near the title either, since most people on this forum seem to believe that.

And based on your requirements, Jeff, Taker, R-Truth, Festus, and either one of the Colons would all be viable options to hold the title going into the Rumble. Personally I'd take HHH over any of them (well, except maybe Festus).

 

[Rusty]

Really? Cuz I thought the whole punting thing was old before he even won the title. And just because Orton faced several different wrestlers for his title doesn't mean he wasn't repetitive. Before he retained at Mania and came up with "The Age of Orton", every promo was "I beat him, him, him, and him. I'm unbeatable.' And that was what basically set up every one of his feuds in that reign. Edge, on the other hand, managed to come up with some very clever ideas. The Vickie marriage angle, using the Major Brothers as lookalikes to win the title. I could go on, but this is not the topic at hand.

Yeah, all his good ideas were in 2007, but when it came to 2008, he just become repetitive for my liking. Randy Orton's punt to the head still seems fresh and interesting. Did you hear the crowd in amazement when he kicked Vince a few weeks back?

Triple H did it at WM19, but again, off topic.

Hence why I said "a long time". That being 5 years.

That's laughable. It's called a transitional title reign, and they happen all the time. Not that the title reign was altogether useless. It A) Gave the fans a moment they'd been waiting to see,even though they're such "take, take, take" people that a title reign wasn't good enough for them, it apparently needs to be a long title reign, even though very few people in history have been entrusted to a long title reign (Even The Rock and Austin never held the title for more than a couple months at a time). B) By having the "mystery attacker" cost Jeff the title it added an extra dimension to the angle and adds fuel to the fire leading to what is presumed to be a match at Mania. Fact is, Hardy fans should be happy that Hardy even got the title for a month, seeing as most other wrestlers they like more likely than not will never even get a sniff of the gold.

You're missing my point. I mentioned that the WWE spent over a whole year building up Jeff Hardy. Why would the WWE build him up for so long and so good, put him in a "feel good" moment when he finally won the title and they even made it seem like they were serious about giving Jeff a good title reign that at least would last until Wrestlemania, only to have him as a transitional champion. If that was the case, he should have won the title much earlier then. That way the WWE wouldn't have to waste all this time on him. Hope that makes sense.

Edge's suspension came and went at a time when he was off TV anyway. As for Orton, at the time that he won the title, I personally didn't believe it should have been done, because at the time he was still, in my eyes, an out of control, unreliable punk with behavioral problems. Eventually, he won me over, and it appears as if now he is more mature, and actually READY to have a show centered around him.

Yeah Edge is considered lucky for that. But in 2007, he proved that he was reliable. He proved to the world that he was capable of carrying Raw and becoming a great WWE Champion. You may not think he was ready, but he did nothing to indicate that he didn't deserve it during his reign, as he stayed out of trouble.

I currently view Jeff Hardy in the same way that I viewed Randy Orton in 2007. Not enough time has passed to see if he has changed, that he can be reliable, that he won't get fired. If he had done a good job in this mystery attacker feud, and had stayed clean through about til I'd say summertime, then maybe I'd have more faith in him. I still don't think he has that certain charisma that it takes to have a show centered around you like Cena or HHH or Orton or Edge, but he has the popularity and the entertainment value to be a main event player. I'd even go ahead at give him the belt at a major show like Summerslam. But I did not believe he was ready for any kind of title reign last year, and he most definitely is not ready to headline WM.

I do agree with this to an extent. Jeff Hardy just won't become another John Cena or another Triple H. He doesn't have the "it" factor that makes him so damn special that he can be the face of the whole company. But he can be a main eventer. And in all honesty, giving him the belt at SummerSlam 2009 would have been a great idea if he wasn't already a former WWE Champion. It could still happen, but it seems Jeff will be busy with his brother Matt for the next few months. In my opinion, the WWE shouldn't have made him a transitional champion simply because we've had too many of those lately, and because they pushed him to the moon in which they should have taken great advantage of that by giving him a fairly length reign (not too long though).

False, Eugene was over HUGE in 04. He even actually came close to winning the Title at one point, and for a second the crowd thought he had, and they popped big. They found Eugene incredibly entertaining, just like Jeff Hardy.

Santino is fairly over right now, they find him entertaining, but not in the same way they find Jeff Hardy entertaining. See the difference?

Well, I think Khali is still viewed as sort of a tweener, but damn right people would interested. Are you telling me you wouldn't be interested in the who the FUCK would be able to take out someone the size of The Great Khali?

Triple H, Undertaker, Finlay and a few others have beaten him cleanly, so what would make this so special? It's not like he's undefeated.

So you admit that Jeff HArdy doesn't belong anywhere near the WWE Championship.

No, I was just pointing out to you that the WWE somtimes gives supestars a World Title even if people don't think they are ready for it.

And based on your requirements, Jeff, Taker, R-Truth, Festus, and either one of the Colons would all be viable options to hold the title going into the Rumble. Personally I'd take HHH over any of them (well, except maybe Festus).

So you're honestly implying that Jeff Hardy is in the same league and card position as R-Truth, the Colons and Festus!? Jeff Hardy is an upper mid-carder/lower main eventer, unlike the above names you mentioned. And why wouldn't Undertaker be a viable option for the belt?

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

The Jeff hardy title run a failure?

I for one would be interested to see a breakdown of the ratings for Smackdown during the Jeff segments. I, personally, didn't watch SD! the ENTIRE time that he was the champion. I have zero interest in Jeff Hardy, and will probably not gain any until he has a heel turn or something. Another thing, maybe they took the title off him so we didn't have a repeat of the RVD situation. They had trust issues throughout 2008, which we all thought was why they were holding the title reign off forever. Maybe this is a result of those same trust problems. They let him have the belt, but not long enough for him to possibly embarrass them while he was the champion.

As for his title run, i can only imagine that SD! started losing quite a few viewers between Armageddon and RR. If i'm right, didn't Jeff only wrestle 1 match on TV while he was the champion? Now, i know Edge doesn't wrestle very often when he's the champ but as the heel who's in cahoots with the GM, that makes perfect sense.

It doesn't however make a great deal of sense to have a face champion not wrestling on TV. Now, i know they've done all this 'mystery attacker/unfortuante accidents' angle, but you wouldn't expect Vickie to give a shit about that would you? You'd expect her to put Jeff through his paces every night to give Edge every possible advantage going into the title match, as opposed to inviting him out for an interview once and letting him take the night off the other weeks, wouldn't you?

Alot of people gave CM Punk a hard time, calling his reign a failure because it only lasted 3 months, but the guy defended it frequently against several guys that were far bigger and more experienced than him, and while he may never have had a decisive victory over anyone except JBL, he still accepted every challenge. Hell, the guy even defended his title the same night he won it.

Jeff Hardy defended his title once in the space of forty two days, and not only that, he barely wrestled while he was the champion. Hawkin's and Ryder's tag reign lasted longer than that and they only defended it once as well!!!!

To me, the year long push for a 1 1/2 month title reign does seem like a waste of time and effort. Khali was traded over to SD! and because Edge had forfeited the title, he was lucky enough for creative to think he was the best choice to be champ!!!

"Eerrr, Edge is hurt, we just finished an angle where Batista gets no more shots, Kane WAS going to face Edge, so..... let's make Khali the champ!" and that reign lasted 3 months as well.

Hmm, that's some quality story writing there guys.

2 guys get instant title reigns that last 3x as long as a talent they've been pushing for a year.

Look at the bright side though. Edge's first title reign lasted 3 weeks. And he's now a 7x champ 3 years later. Same thing could happen to Jeff (though i seriously doubt it). Imo, they'd have benefitted more from having JEff not win it yet, and win it later this year