How bad was 2006 WWE?

[LBGetBack]

Not agreeing with you doesn't make somebody a WWE apologist. I also disagree with most of the stuff you mentioned as horrible because, shocker, at the end of the day, all this shit is subjective.



Sure I can. If the ones closest to him like Rey Mysterio, Chavo Guererro and Eddie's immediate family didn't have a problem with it, why should we? We didn't know him personally. If it was something that those close to Eddie felt he would have hated, it would have never happened. This is more the fans finding something to crucify WWE over when, at the end of the day, it wasn't that big of a deal.



I liked Mysterio as champ. He wasn't booked as a dominant champion because his size made that type of booking completely unrealistic. Booking him strongly would have been a stupid thing to do. Just because a champion is booked weakly, doesn't mean he wasn't a good champion. Mysterio was still insanely over and remained around the main event for years after losing the title. In fact, I'm pretty sure he won two more World titles after his 06 run. If he was as shitty a champion as some people claim he was, he would have dropped down the card after his reign was over like champions that were actually terrible.



This was nothing but comedy. And since I found it hilarious, I'm inclined to disagree with you about how bad it was. I was entertained, and that's all I really care about when it comes down to it.



Again, subjective. You may have hated Cena, but there were those who loved him. Most of the stuff he was involved in was good television.



Maybe you're right about this. I never watched WWECW so it didn't affect my viewing pleasure.



No, this was good stuff. I remember looking forward to seeing DX weekly and people loved the crap they were pulling.

I can think of years when WWE was downright a chore to watch, 2006 wasn't one of them.

As far as Rey's booking as champ.....you said it wouldn't make sense to book him as dominant. Ok. But "dominant" and "getting squashed" are not the only two options. Rey was squashed on TV multiple times in his first month as champion. That just wasn't a good idea IMO. It killed his credibility as champion immediately. How about let him tear the house down with Angle and Benoit and barely pull out the wins? That gets him over with everyone right away. There was no good reason to book him against all the monsters on the roster and have him get squashed in short matches.

As far as other titles....I remember Rey winning the WWE title and losing it like the next night at the time when Punk was away and was looked at as the "real champion". Not really something to hang your hat on.

And he won the World Championship and held it for a few weeks a few years later, at a time where the title had clearly become looked at as a secondary title.

 

[OYDK]

As far as Rey's booking as champ.....you said it wouldn't make sense to book him as dominant. Ok. But "dominant" and "getting squashed" are not the only two options. Rey was squashed on TV multiple times in his first month as champion. That just wasn't a good idea IMO. It killed his credibility as champion immediately. How about let him tear the house down with Angle and Benoit and barely pull out the wins? That gets him over with everyone right away. There was no good reason to book him against all the monsters on the roster and have him get squashed in short matches.

Yeah, tearing the house down with Benoit and Angle would have made for a fun title reign, but that's not the champion that they wanted Rey Mysterio to be. He was an underdog who was booked as a beatable champion, and that was completely fine with me and, judging from his popularity and the way the rest of his career in WWE went, it was perfectly fine with the majority of fans and management. Normally, I would disagree with a champion being booked so weakly, but Mysterio was a special case. This isn't Randy Orton or HHH, or even Eddie Guerrero we're talking about. This is a 5'5, 175lb Rey Mysterio. Probably the smallest guy ever to hold the World title in WWE by a significant margin. They booked him as a fluke champion because that's what they wanted him to be perceived as. Right or wrong, it worked out fine in the end. At the end of the day, if you want to argue that Mysterio wasn't a believable champion, I could agree with that. But he wasn't a bad champion. People gave a shit about him, which is a hell of a lot more than you can say for other former World champs.

And I'm pretty sure the only one who truly squashed Rey was Khali. He had pretty competitive matches with Mark Henry and Finlay despite losing.

As far as other titles....I remember Rey winning the WWE title and losing it like the next night at the time when Punk was away and was looked at as the "real champion". Not really something to hang your hat on.

And he won the World Championship and held it for a few weeks a few years later, at a time where the title had clearly become looked at as a secondary title.

Right, but they were never going to give him another long-term title reign because, again, he wasn't a believable champion. My point was that despite people touting how horrible his 06 title run was, he still remained at a main event level for pretty much the rest of his career, won two more World titles, even if the runs were incredibly short-lived, and cemented himself as a true legend. If he was such a terrible champion, he would have went the Swagger/Ziggler/Khali/Miz route and dropped way down the card after it was over.

 

[Slyfox696]

A DQ win over Henry was revenge? Where was his revenge on Khali?

It's like you don't even read the posts before you reply to them. Try reading them again and see where you've went wrong. Thanks.

That's not what was happening at all. JBL was throwing monsters out there to whup Rey's ass every week. But then he couldn't beat Rey. I don't care enough to look it up but I'm almost positive Rey lost multiple times to Finlay back then, one might've been right before Mania.

He lost to Finlay once after winning the title.

And he wasn't just losing, these were short squash matches to Henry and Khali!

So what you're saying is that in non-title matches, the plucky 5'3" underdog champion got demolished by the enormous monster? In pro wrestling? Surely not!

Seriously, have you ever watched pro wrestling? Do you have ANY idea how it is supposed to work? I've already explained it once, but I'll do it again because it obviously didn't sink in.

Rey Mysterio was the underdog. To advance an underdog storyline, Rey has to look vulnerable. Whether looking vulnerable means working the classic WWE babyface match style or simply being made to look like he has no chance against a monster, the entire point is to play on the "How can he overcome these odds" storyline.

That's what the WWE did. Rey Mysterio was a 5'3" wrestler with mediocre mic skills. They capitalized on his enormous popularity (especially with the youth and Hispanic demographics) and put the title on him. However, he was (and always had been) an underdog type character. Making a champion an underdog requires the WWE to essentially do the things they did. Throw in the fact that high profile matches on free TV means most wrestlers have a roughly .500 win percentage throughout their TV career and Rey Mysterio was booked just fine.

Did Rey make a great champion? I wouldn't say that, but that's not the WWE's fault. They did the best they could with what they had at their disposal. Again, at the end of the day, Rey is 5'3" and has mediocre mic skills. The booking was just fine for what the WWE had at the time.

Now that I've explained it again, in greater detail, an intelligent person would be able to realize I'm right. I wonder what you'll think...

You can't admit when you're wrong

I'm not wrong. I'm 100% correct. Just because your understanding of pro wrestling is incredibly limited, that doesn't make you correct. Quite the contrary.

and get so hung up on trying to win arguments

I'm not hung up on "trying to win", I've already won. I won because I'm right. This isn't a subjective discussion. We could argue the degrees of quality of the booking, but what simply cannot be debated is that Rey wasn't "by far the worst booked champion of all time". I give worse examples below, in case you're curious.

I went back and edited my last post but you had already started your reply, as I did misread your Rey underdog thing.

When I first scanned your post looking for your acknowledge of posting falsehoods, I missed this and wrote out a fairly snarky reply essentially telling you I wouldn't reply until you admit your mistakes. However, I re-read your post and I saw this and I do appreciate you acknowledging you were wrong, which is why I'm now replying instead of just leaving snark. Thank you.

He was booked weakly as champion.

He was booked about as well as someone like him can be booked. I've already explained why.

Much weaker than normal.

I think you're confusing the quality of the booking with the differences in storylines. For example, someone like Brock Lesnar is going to be booked as a steamroller, because it fits his size and personality. So he's going to steamroll through opponents. Rey Mysterio is not Brock Lesnar, so it would make no sense for him to be booked in such a manner. Rey Mysterio is your classic underdog, so it makes sense for him to be booked in such a manner that he appears vulnerable before overcoming the odds.

Again, this is just pro wrestling 101.

I'm still awaiting an apology

You won't get one because I'm right. Unlike you, I haven't said anything which is false. You have. Multiple times. You acknowledged one, still waiting on you to acknowledge the other.

You "don't suffer liars"? More like you don't take your L's like a man.

When the day comes I actually lose a debate, I'll acknowledge it. Until that day comes, however, I'll keep pointing out how ridiculous your posts are.

Shelton was good in the ring.

No he wasn't. He was passable, with limited promo ability. He wasn't good.

Slyfox do you ever get tired of being a wwe apologetist?

Me pointing out the stupid things you said does not make me a "wwe apologetist" [sic]. It just means you said stupid things.

I'm still waiting for you

And I'm still waiting for you to reply to my first post in this thread.

Funny how you want me to reply to your later post when you won't reply to my first post. Dumbass.

to defend the diva search

Why would I defend that? The Diva search was a waste of time. I've never argued otherwise. At least the first Diva search (I think it was the first one) brought the Rock back for a segment, the 2006 one didn't even do that.

It's amazing how many stupid things people will say because they simply don't take the time to understand what they read.

If you think 2006 was good

I don't know if I'd say it was "good", but it's certainly better than a whole bunch of years. We had multiple wrestlers moving up the card, multiple great matches, memorable storylines, etc.

There was nothing wrong about 2006.

what do you consider bad I'm afraid to ask?

'93-96 are definitely in the running. 2003 and 2004 were pretty lackluster as well. After about 2008, the years kind of run together on me (after nearly 30 years of wrestling, that tends to happen), but those years stand out to me.

Also who was booked worse than Rey Mysterio as world champ was in 2006?

We'll just stay in the 90s:

Bret Hart in '92-93
Bob Backlund in 94 (at least according to the criteria presented elsewhere in this thread, I didn't have a problem with it personally)
Michaels in '96
Almost every WCW champion not named Hollywood Hogan in the 90s.

The idea Mysterio was booked worse than any other world champion in history is ridiculous and suggests gross ignorance of pro wrestling.

 

[LBGetBack]

It's like you don't even read the posts before you reply to them. Try reading them again and see where you've went wrong. Thanks.

He lost to Finlay once after winning the title.

So what you're saying is that in non-title matches, the plucky 5'3" underdog champion got demolished by the enormous monster? In pro wrestling? Surely not!

Seriously, have you ever watched pro wrestling? Do you have ANY idea how it is supposed to work? I've already explained it once, but I'll do it again because it obviously didn't sink in.

Rey Mysterio was the underdog. To advance an underdog storyline, Rey has to look vulnerable. Whether looking vulnerable means working the classic WWE babyface match style or simply being made to look like he has no chance against a monster, the entire point is to play on the "How can he overcome these odds" storyline.

That's what the WWE did. Rey Mysterio was a 5'3" wrestler with mediocre mic skills. They capitalized on his enormous popularity (especially with the youth and Hispanic demographics) and put the title on him. However, he was (and always had been) an underdog type character. Making a champion an underdog requires the WWE to essentially do the things they did. Throw in the fact that high profile matches on free TV means most wrestlers have a roughly .500 win percentage throughout their TV career and Rey Mysterio was booked just fine.

Did Rey make a great champion? I wouldn't say that, but that's not the WWE's fault. They did the best they could with what they had at their disposal. Again, at the end of the day, Rey is 5'3" and has mediocre mic skills. The booking was just fine for what the WWE had at the time.

Now that I've explained it again, in greater detail, an intelligent person would be able to realize I'm right. I wonder what you'll think...

I'm not wrong. I'm 100% correct. Just because your understanding of pro wrestling is incredibly limited, that doesn't make you correct. Quite the contrary.

I'm not hung up on "trying to win", I've already won. I won because I'm right. This isn't a subjective discussion. We could argue the degrees of quality of the booking, but what simply cannot be debated is that Rey wasn't "by far the worst booked champion of all time". I give worse examples below, in case you're curious.
When I first scanned your post looking for your acknowledge of posting falsehoods, I missed this and wrote out a fairly snarky reply essentially telling you I wouldn't reply until you admit your mistakes. However, I re-read your post and I saw this and I do appreciate you acknowledging you were wrong, which is why I'm now replying instead of just leaving snark. Thank you.

He was booked about as well as someone like him can be booked. I've already explained why.

I think you're confusing the quality of the booking with the differences in storylines. For example, someone like Brock Lesnar is going to be booked as a steamroller, because it fits his size and personality. So he's going to steamroll through opponents. Rey Mysterio is not Brock Lesnar, so it would make no sense for him to be booked in such a manner. Rey Mysterio is your classic underdog, so it makes sense for him to be booked in such a manner that he appears vulnerable before overcoming the odds.

Again, this is just pro wrestling 101.

You won't get one because I'm right. Unlike you, I haven't said anything which is false. You have. Multiple times. You acknowledged one, still waiting on you to acknowledge the other.

When the day comes I actually lose a debate, I'll acknowledge it. Until that day comes, however, I'll keep pointing out how stupid and dishonest your posts are.

No he wasn't. He was passable, with limited promo ability. He wasn't good.

Me pointing out the stupid things you said does not make me a "wwe apologetist" [sic]. It just means you said stupid things.

And I'm still waiting for you to reply to my first post in this thread.

Funny how you want me to reply to your later post when you won't reply to my first post. Dumbass

Why would I defend that? The Diva search was a waste of time. I've never argued otherwise. At least the first Diva search (I think it was the first one) brought the Rock back for a segment, the 2006 one didn't even do that.

It's amazing how many stupid things people will say because they simply don't take the time to understand what they read.
I don't know if I'd say it was "good", but it's certainly better than a whole bunch of years. We had multiple wrestlers moving up the card, multiple great matches, memorable storylines, etc.

There was nothing wrong about 2006.

'93-96 are definitely in the running. 2003 and 2004 were pretty lackluster as well. After about 2008, the years kind of run together on me (after nearly 30 years of wrestling, that tends to happen), but those years stand out to me.

We'll just stay in the 90s:

Bret Hart in '92-93
Bob Backlund in 94 (at least according to the criteria presented elsewhere in this thread, I didn't have a problem with it personally)
Michaels in '96
Almost every WCW champion not named Hollywood Hogan in the 90s.

The idea Mysterio was booked worse than any other world champion in history is ridiculous and suggests gross ignorance of pro wrestling.

Right.....WWE just HAD to book Rey to get crushed by the biggest guys on the roster right after winning the title. There was no other route to go, right? Like.....did they book Rey that way to get him over in the first place? Nope. But as soon as he's champ? Bad booking, IMO.

Finlay beat Rey once after he won it.....and once right before. He couldn't even beat midcard mainstay Finlay? And he's champ? Brilliant!

You haven't "won" shit, though it's obviously very important to you given your past freakouts on me. Right after winning the title, Rey was catching L's almost every week. That's obviously what I was referring to earlier, so you googling up a late June win over Helms is pretty damn meaningless. Rey was getting his ass whipped after winning the belt. You liked it...that's fine. I didn't. Get over it.

Still waiting to here how Rey got his "revenge" or whatever on Henry. Beating him by DQ??

Shelton was good in the ring. You think otherwise.....fine. I think you're wrong. I think they botched him by putting him on that 6 month losing streak. He was solidly over as a face before that, but obviously a 6 month losing streak would kill that off. And nothing about him really worked as a heel. He was a natural face, but they made him heel for most of the rest of his WWE run. Dumb.

You still owe me an apology for taking it way beyond the posts last time. You gonna ban me from here too because I think they messed up on how they booked Rey as champion and purposefully cooled Shelton off? And again YOU referenced that past BS first, so don't pull some more snake shit and infract me for mentioning it like you did before. If you bring it up in a post, it's fair game to be replied to.

Bret was booked well in 92-93. He was a "fighting champion" who frequently defended the title on TV, putting on numerous good matches. They didn't have any established main event heels left for him to feud with so they had to put Shawn in there too early. Then they had the newer guys in Razor and Yoko. They made the best of it in a transitional period for the company, and Bret was extremely over and credible.

 

[AnthonyM4]

Wait Slyfox is a mod here? Maybe he will ban me too? It still doesn't change my opinion of how bad 2006 was in wwe. Everything I wrote in the OP was what people were complaining about back then so I don't know why people say it's good now. I guess because of nostalgia? Oh another thing I forgot to mention that was bad in 2006 and it's not really that big because it didn't last more than one episode(I don't think) was the Vince McMahon cartoon. It was an extra on the Survivor Series 2006 dvd(that ppv was one of the few good things about that year).

 

[LBGetBack]

Wait Slyfox is a mod here? Maybe he will ban me too? It still doesn't change my opinion of how bad 2006 was in wwe. Everything I wrote in the OP was what people were complaining about back then so I don't know why people say it's good now. I guess because of nostalgia? Oh another thing I forgot to mention that was bad in 2006 and it's not really that big because it didn't last more than one episode(I don't think) was the Vince McMahon cartoon. It was an extra on the Survivor Series 2006 dvd(that ppv was one of the few good things about that year).

"Good" and "Bad" are subjective. I don't know if it's one of the worst years, but it was definitely disappointing. A lot of things that looked promising kinda didn't pan out.

Though I did like the Flair-Foley feud that someone mentioned earlier and I had forgotten when listing things I liked. I also liked Melina's turn on Foley, but I don't remember that really going anywhere for Melina. I thought she was a great heel back in those years.

 

[Slyfox696]

Right.....WWE just HAD to book Rey to get crushed by the biggest guys on the roster right after winning the title. There was no other route to go, right? Like.....did they book Rey that way to get him over in the first place? Nope. But as soon as he's champ? Bad booking, IMO.

It's like you don't even read what I write. Try again.

Finlay beat Rey once after he won it.....and once right before. He couldn't even beat midcard mainstay Finlay? And he's champ? Brilliant!

We're talking about Rey as champion, not what happened before. I know you're getting thoroughly thrashed in this debate, but stop trying to deflect from how badly you've been beaten.

You haven't "won" shit

No, I haven't won "shit", I've won this debate. I have made you look like the fool you are. You constantly say things which are not true, are now trying to bring in things which have nothing to do with the debate and I have constantly exposed your lack of wrestling knowledge.

It's been an absolute beatdown.

though it's obviously very important to you given your past freakouts on me.

What freakouts? I've never had a "freakout". You're the one who acted like a baby when your lying wasn't being tolerated. And you're still acting like a baby because you keep trying to bring it up. And I've allowed you to do it a couple of times, even though I explicitly told you that matter was closed.

So, like I told you before, if you try to rehash that last incident where you acted like a child because I wouldn't let you continuously lie, then you will receive discipline. Consider this post the final word from me on the matter. Stop acting like a little child, stop lying and we'll be fine and we can continue to discussing this. But if you can't stop acting like a baby and you can't stop lying, then I think you understand what will happen after that.

Right after winning the title, Rey was catching L's almost every week.

Again you lie. Rey's very first match after winning the title, he defeated Orton on Smackdown.

Why do you keep lying? Rey was 7-4 in televised matches during his reign, which is a fine record for a babyface. Why do you keep lying about things already proven a lie? And why do you keep ignoring the fact his booking made absolute sense?

That's obviously what I was referring to earlier, so you googling up a late June win over Helms is pretty damn meaningless.

No, it's not. We're talking about Rey's booking and you said, "Rey WASNT winning matches. He got the title and then started getting his ass beat every week." and that was untrue. We were talking about Rey's booking during his title run and your comment was false. You didn't say "Rey didn't win matches at first". You said he didn't win matches. You posted something which was untrue (which was rendered untrue by the very first match Rey had against Orton). I posted his record, which also proved your statement untrue.

You are wrong. I'm right. Like always.

Still waiting to here how Rey got his "revenge" or whatever on Henry. Beating him by DQ??

Still waiting on you to bother reading what I actually wrote.

Shelton was good in the ring.

Nope. You can say that all you want, but it won't make it true. Like any other ignorant poster on the Internet, you clearly have no idea what makes a good wrestler. Shelton wasn't good in the ring.

I think you're wrong.

I think your postings in this thread have proven you don't know much about wrestling.

I think they botched him by putting him on that 6 month losing streak.

I think anyone who thinks wins and losses matter that much to a talented wrestler doesn't understand pro wrestling.

He was solidly over as a face before that

But he had no real heat. He was just stuck where he was. He was losing heat already and had no momentum. And that's all on Benjamin.

The Gold Standard gimmick was somewhat decent, but he just wasn't good enough to make a superstar out of himself. That's okay, there are very few wrestlers who become great. It's okay Shelton wasn't great, he had a nice long run in the show. But he was nothing special for the WWE.

And nothing about him really worked as a heel.

Yes, because he had very little promo ability. Like I've said.

He was a natural face

No, he was a natural "shut up and go wrestle" guy. But unlike those guys you named earlier, he wasn't great at the wrestling part. So he was expendable.

but they made him heel for most of the rest of his WWE run. Dumb.

Most wrestlers tell you working as a heel is far easier than working as a babyface. That's because you have so much more material you can work with. There are some wrestlers who can't work heel because they are too good at babyface, but Benjamin clearly wasn't one of those guys.

You still owe me an apology

No I don't. You still owe an apology for blatantly stating things which were wrong. You've acknowledged the one, now you need to acknowledge the other.

for taking it way beyond the posts last time. You gonna ban me from here too

See my comment above. And stop pushing your luck. You're an idiot who doesn't deserve all the chances I've given you, but I'm a fairly laid back and merciful person. But I'm reaching the end of my patience with you. Drop your crybaby act, like I have told you repeatedly before, or there will be consequences.

Bret was booked well in 92-93.

He won the title at a house show and lost it at Wrestlemania to a guy who lost it 3 minutes later to Hogan in a non-advertised match.

Somehow Rey being 7-4 means he lost all the time but Bret Hart winning the title at a house show and losing it to the guy who lost it 3 minutes later to Hogan is being "booked well".

You're such an idiot.

Wait Slyfox is a mod here?

Administrator, actually.

Maybe he will ban me too?

Only if you break the rules. Are you someone who breaks the rules? If not, you're fine.

It still doesn't change my opinion of how bad 2006 was in wwe.

And it doesn't change my opinion you don't know what you're talking about.

Everything I wrote in the OP was what people were complaining about back then so I don't know why people say it's good now.

Yes, because it is a real rarity that people on the Internet are complaining about something.

I guess because of nostalgia?

Or because many posters have zero ability to see the big picture. Which is far more likely.

Oh another thing I forgot to mention that was bad in 2006 and it's not really that big because it didn't last more than one episode(I don't think) was the Vince McMahon cartoon. It was an extra on the Survivor Series 2006 dvd(that ppv was one of the few good things about that year).

I don't think I even need to explain why this is stupid.

 

[LBGetBack]

It's like you don't even read what I write. Try again.

We're talking about Rey as champion, not what happened before. I know you're getting thoroughly thrashed in this debate, but stop trying to deflect from how badly you've been beaten.

No, I haven't won "shit", I've won this debate. I have made you look like the fool you are. You constantly say things which are not true, are now trying to bring in things which have nothing to do with the debate and I have constantly exposed your lack of wrestling knowledge.

It's been an absolute beatdown.
What freakouts? I've never had a "freakout". You're the one who acted like a baby when your lying wasn't being tolerated. And you're still acting like a baby because you keep trying to bring it up. And I've allowed you to do it a couple of times, even though I explicitly told you that matter was closed.

So, like I told you before, if you try to rehash that last incident where you acted like a child because I wouldn't let you continuously lie, then you will receive discipline. Consider this post the final word from me on the matter. Stop acting like a little child, stop lying and we'll be fine and we can continue to discussing this. But if you can't stop acting like a baby and you can't stop lying, then I think you understand what will happen after that.

Again you lie. Rey's very first match after winning the title, he defeated Orton on Smackdown.

Why do you keep lying? Rey was 7-4 in televised matches during his reign, which is a fine record for a babyface. Why do you keep lying about things already proven a lie? And why do you keep ignoring the fact his booking made absolute sense?

No, it's not. We're talking about Rey's booking and you said, "Rey WASNT winning matches. He got the title and then started getting his ass beat every week." and that was untrue. We were talking about Rey's booking during his title run and your comment was false. You didn't say "Rey didn't win matches at first". You said he didn't win matches. You posted something which was untrue (which was rendered untrue by the very first match Rey had against Orton). I posted his record, which also proved your statement untrue.

You are wrong. I'm right. Like always.

Still waiting on you to bother reading what I actually wrote.

Nope. You can say that all you want, but it won't make it true. Like any other ignorant poster on the Internet, you clearly have no idea what makes a good wrestler. Shelton wasn't good in the ring.

I think your postings in this thread have proven you don't know much about wrestling.

I think anyone who thinks wins and losses matter that much to a talented wrestler doesn't understand pro wrestling.

But he had no real heat. He was just stuck where he was. He was losing heat already and had no momentum. And that's all on Benjamin.

The Gold Standard gimmick was somewhat decent, but he just wasn't good enough to make a superstar out of himself. That's okay, there are very few wrestlers who become great. It's okay Shelton wasn't great, he had a nice long run in the show. But he was nothing special for the WWE.

Yes, because he had very little promo ability. Like I've said.

No, he was a natural "shut up and go wrestle" guy. But unlike those guys you named earlier, he wasn't great at the wrestling part. So he was expendable.

Most wrestlers tell you working as a heel is far easier than working as a babyface. That's because you have so much more material you can work with. There are some wrestlers who can't work heel because they are too good at babyface, but Benjamin clearly wasn't one of those guys.

No I don't. You still owe an apology for blatantly stating things which were wrong. You've acknowledged the one, now you need to acknowledge the other.

See my comment above. And stop pushing your luck. You're an idiot who doesn't deserve all the chances I've given you, but I'm a fairly laid back and merciful person. But I'm reaching the end of my patience with you. Drop your crybaby act, like I have told you repeatedly before, or there will be consequences.

He won the title at a house show and lost it at Wrestlemania to a guy who lost it 3 minutes later to Hogan in a non-advertised match.

Somehow Rey being 7-4 means he lost all the time but Bret Hart winning the title at a house show and losing it to the guy who lost it 3 minutes later to Hogan is being "booked well".

You're such an idiot.
Administrator, actually.
Only if you break the rules. Are you someone who breaks the rules? If not, you're fine.

And it doesn't change my opinion you don't know what you're talking about.
Yes, because it is a real rarity that people on the Internet are complaining about something.

Or because many posters have zero ability to see the big picture. Which is far more likely.

I don't think I even need to explain why this is stupid.

So losing a week or two before becoming champion to a Finlay and then losing to him AGAIN a few weeks later doesn't matter? Like....you think everyone's memories get reset when Rey wins the title? He wasn't booked well around that time. Took way too many L's.

"Wasn't winning matches".....and you're that guy to take that 100% literally as if I meant he never actually won once? Really? You're that guy? Of course you are. Because you're a hoe. Rey got his ass beat a bunch of times in his first month as champ. Is that literal enough for you, dumb ass?

7-4-2, not 7 and 4. And lost 3 of his first 4? Yeah, awesome way to book a new champ. 3 minute squash match to Khali. Phenomenal stuff.

Wins and loses matter to almost everyone. Very few guys are "bullet proof" to where they can just lose all the time and the fans will still take them seriously. Seriously, you're saying so much stupid shit here. That 6 month losing streak killed Shelton as a face.

Shelton was doing very well prior to that. His athleticism and moveset made him charismatic. There's lots of different ways to be charismatic.

Yoko had just wrestled a match and then got hit with salt in the eyes. He won the title back a few months later. Bret was fine. That's why he got multiple LEGIT reigns in the following years. An era with one title. Rey was never a main event guy, as the one time that he had a chance, after beating Kurt Angle and Randy Orton at wrestlemania for the title, they started making him eat a bunch of pins in the following month, and even lose a squash match.

 

[LBGetBack]

Fair to say that Rey's reign was the first time that belt became looked at as a secondary title? Prior to that, that title was always looked at as the top title or equal. That was the title dominated by Triple H, held by Goldberg, and then Batista finally took it off Triple H. Angle had a transitional reign.....and then Rey wins it in a Mania match that got its planned length basically cut in half. Then they had him lose a bunch of matches in first month as champ, even getting squashed.

It's fair to say it was the reign that initially brought that belt down a notch. They eventually got it back a few times by getting Cena-Orton-Batista winning it. It eventually became a complete #2 belt when guys like Swagger and Del Rio and Ziggler were winning it. But I think Rey's reign was the chink in the armor. That's the first time you couldn't really take the holder of that belt seriously. Like, most put an asterisk on Booker ever being a champion in WWE. Like "yeah, technically Booker was champion but......". The way they booked Rey as champ, devalued that title IMO.

 

[Slyfox696]

So losing a week or two before becoming champion to a Finlay and then losing to him AGAIN a few weeks later doesn't matter?

In a discussion about whether Rey was the worst booked champion? No, only the one loss matters.

Like....you think everyone's memories get reset when Rey wins the title?

Like...do you not watch wrestling? Idiot.

He wasn't booked well around that time. Took way too many L's.

Again, you clearly don't watch much wrestling.

"Wasn't winning matches".....and you're that guy to take that 100% literally as if I meant he never actually won once?

Wasn't winning matches suggests he...wasn't winning matches. He won nearly twice as many as he lost. You were wrong. Badly wrong. And you won't admit you were wrong, which is why you have no credibility.

Wins and loses matter to almost everyone.

Not to the ones who are skilled. Again, it's like you've never watched pro wrestling.

Very few guys are "bullet proof" to where they can just lose all the time and the fans will still take them seriously. Seriously, you're saying so much stupid shit here. That 6 month losing streak killed Shelton as a face.

Please. Try watching wrestling before you reply again.

A truly talented worker will be successful. It's just that simple. Shelton Benjamin was given MORE than enough chances to be successful, but he never capitalized on them. He just wasn't a great WWE worker. And, again, there's nothing wrong with that, it's incredibly rare to be an all-time great. But Benjamin wasn't good.

Shelton was doing very well prior to that. His athleticism and moveset made him charismatic. There's lots of different ways to be charismatic.

No. His athleticism and moveset popped the crowd...it didn't make him charismatic.

See, this is what I'm talking about. You clearly have no idea how pro wrestling works. None. When you don't understand the difference between popping the crowd with high risk moves and having charisma, you have no business debating anything wrestling with me.

Yoko had just wrestled a match and then got hit with salt in the eyes.

So ridiculous. Rey, working an underdog gimmick, losing to monsters in non-title matches is terrible booking, but Hart, a master technician, losing to a sumo wrestler who loses the title 3 minutes later is fine booking.

Seriously, how stupid can you be?

Rey was never a main event guy

Exactly. No one is saying Rey made a great champion. I'm just saying his booking was fine.

The fact you still don't understand the difference only further illustrates your ignorance of pro wrestling.

 

[LBGetBack]

Bret Hart had a solid reign and successfully defended the title numerous times over a 6 month period. I don't recall him even losing a match. He lost in the main event at Wrestlemania solely due to outside interference. He didn't look weak whatsoever. The Hogan stuff didn't make Hart look weak either.....it just made Mr. Fuji and Yoko look like complete dumbasses.

Rey getting squashed on Smackdown just weeks after winning the title.....nah. That did nothing good for anybody. Like I said, booking him well would've had him winning good, competitive matches against guys like Benoit, Angle. He should've never lost to Finlay....not as champion or in the weeks building(you know what this is right?) up to his title reign.

Benjamin was good in the ring. I saw him put in numerous strong matches. I don't care what you think. Benjamin was solidly over in 2004 and the first half of 2005. I know what I saw and heard. He worked well as a face, when he wasn't booked as a loser. Fans don't stay behind losers. Nice pop for Shelton on his return the other night, too.

Back to the original part of this thread.....I recently saw some of the DX-Rated RKO stuff that I had forgotten about. That feud was quite good. Very intense. The jokey DX skits from that time weren't very good and came off forced IMO. But the build up to HHH's turn, and the Rated RKO feud were top notch. I had forgotten just how violent things were at that time. Dragging a bloody Hacksaw Jim Duggan out and giving him a conchairto. That HBK revenge conchairto on Orton while Edge stayed outside the ring, that led to Orton and Edge's split. That was a brutal, bloody feud.

 

[therockiswwf]

Bret Hart had a solid reign and successfully defended the title numerous times over a 6 month period. I don't recall him even losing a match. He lost in the main event at Wrestlemania solely due to outside interference. He didn't look weak whatsoever. The Hogan stuff didn't make Hart look weak either.....it just made Mr. Fuji and Yoko look like complete dumbasses.

Bret Hart had 5 matches between his title win/loss on TV. You are correct about the not losing part. Only one was not a world title match. However, his world title opponents were not the strongest. Virgil, Papa Shango, Shawn Michaels (not a big name at the time) and Razor Ramon.

It made Bret look like a geek. Bret can't win so he needs his older brother to come beat up the bully for him.

Rey getting squashed on Smackdown just weeks after winning the title.....nah. That did nothing good for anybody. Like I said, booking him well would've had him winning good, competitive matches against guys like Benoit, Angle. He should've never lost to Finlay....not as champion or in the weeks building(you know what this is right?) up to his title reign.

Rey lost to Finlay due to interference from Sabu. Finlay then hit Rey with the shillelagh.

Putting him with Khali and Henry was stupid because there was really no need to have him face someone like them. There is no real way for Rey to look good or have any shine against them. Had JBL beatdown Rey a bit before those matches, it would have been much better. Did it make storyline sense for Rey to be the underdog? Yes. Could they have accomplished the same thing without booking Rey against giants? Yes.

Booking Rey as a strong champion does seem a bit disingenuous. Booking Rey in situations where there is no possible way for him to look good was not the best idea.

His booking after the JBL story improved. He wasn't successful against ECW (loss and no contest) but ECW was new at the time so that is understandable. After that, he won every match until he lost the title due to outside interference. His first month was booked poorly but was booked well enough afterwards.

Benjamin was good in the ring. I saw him put in numerous strong matches. I don't care what you think. Benjamin was solidly over in 2004 and the first half of 2005. I know what I saw and heard. He worked well as a face, when he wasn't booked as a loser. Fans don't stay behind losers. Nice pop for Shelton on his return the other night, too.

There is a difference between being over and being sustainable. Shelton was over. Shelton was the new shiny toy. He also had the charisma of a potato. The gimmick they gave him (the mom thing) was an anchor but he was going to sink eventually. He did not have the mic skills to stay in a top spot. He did not have a look that could overcome a lack of mic skills. Did not have the in-ring work to overcome the lack of mic skills. Brock Lesnar has zero need for a mic. He looks like a badass. Can throw people like Big Show around with ease. That can overcome a lack of mic skills.

Shelton's run was not bad. He was a solid midcard guy. Could do entertaining spots. Good for getting a crowd going.

 

[LBGetBack]

Bret Hart had 5 matches between his title win/loss on TV. You are correct about the not losing part. Only one was not a world title match. However, his world title opponents were not the strongest. Virgil, Papa Shango, Shawn Michaels (not a big name at the time) and Razor Ramon.

It made Bret look like a geek. Bret can't win so he needs his older brother to come beat up the bully for him.



Rey lost to Finlay due to interference from Sabu. Finlay then hit Rey with the shillelagh.

Putting him with Khali and Henry was stupid because there was really no need to have him face someone like them. There is no real way for Rey to look good or have any shine against them. Had JBL beatdown Rey a bit before those matches, it would have been much better. Did it make storyline sense for Rey to be the underdog? Yes. Could they have accomplished the same thing without booking Rey against giants? Yes.

Booking Rey as a strong champion does seem a bit disingenuous. Booking Rey in situations where there is no possible way for him to look good was not the best idea.

His booking after the JBL story improved. He wasn't successful against ECW (loss and no contest) but ECW was new at the time so that is understandable. After that, he won every match until he lost the title due to outside interference. His first month was booked poorly but was booked well enough afterwards.



There is a difference between being over and being sustainable. Shelton was over. Shelton was the new shiny toy. He also had the charisma of a potato. The gimmick they gave him (the mom thing) was an anchor but he was going to sink eventually. He did not have the mic skills to stay in a top spot. He did not have a look that could overcome a lack of mic skills. Did not have the in-ring work to overcome the lack of mic skills. Brock Lesnar has zero need for a mic. He looks like a badass. Can throw people like Big Show around with ease. That can overcome a lack of mic skills.

Shelton's run was not bad. He was a solid midcard guy. Could do entertaining spots. Good for getting a crowd going.

There weren't any established top heels left for Bret to go against though. Razor was built up quickly and he was over as a heel as much as someone could be 6 months into his run. Shawn was the best they had available at SS. Bret had Yokozuna in the sharpshooter when he got salt in the eyes. It made him look like a guy who got screwed.

I disagree that Shelton didn't have a look. He had a great look, and like I've said before.....his insane athleticism was part of his charisma. They played that up big time and for good reason. Brock's character is being a badass.....Shelton's character was being incredibly athletic.

The losing streak was a mistake. No question about it. He had a solid run, but I think he would've been better used as a face for much of it. He worked better as a face. I think the charisma thing is vastly overplayed.....because he was getting solid cheers for well over a year! Fans liked him. That's all that matters. "Not sustainable"....I guess we'll never know. Because he was still solidly over until he started losing every match, including to scrubs like Trevor Murdoch and Kerwin White. Terrible decision IMO.

 

[Dagger Dias]

2006 WWE had its moments. There are things they did that year that I absolutely hated, but there are also good things I recall from it. The bad parts were really bad. The Shawn VS Vince feud had really terrible offensive moments such as mocking God. I'm a devout Christian so I hated that. Rey wasn't as bad as some others thought, although I would be lying if I didn't say I disliked him as World Champion. I never found him believable in the role personally and also didn't like the vision behind the push. Smackdown was awful for nearly all of 2006 until Batista came back at the end. Raw did have some good moments such as the DX reunion and 2006 also gave us one of the best heel alliances of all time in Rated RKO. Fairly mixed thoughts on this year. The bad stuff borders on abysmal, yet there was certainly a lot of good content in 2006 WWE too.

 

[Dolph Ziggler's Gimmick]

I have a lot of nostalgia for 2006, but I'll admit there was some bad shit.

However, I can't pretend like guys like Edge, Orton, Umaga, Carlito, Benoit, MVP, Undertaker, Batista, Angle, Kennedy, Hardy, MNM, London and Kendrick, and King Booker weren't a joy to watch. Even Cena wasn't "cheesy" yet, he was just hated cause of how over pushed he was. He was no where near close to being "Super Cena", though.

The stuff with the McMahons was horseshit on Vince's part, but I think HBK made it work and entertained as always, Shane wasn't bad too. DX made me laugh when I was younger then, but looking back the toilet humor was bad. Hell, I'm not a huge fan of 1997 DX either, though they did work better as heels back then.

2006 was just a mixed bag really. It's interesting to see people still get offended by the Eddie stuff, they obviously got blessings from his friends and family to use his name in order to establish Orton as a mega heel(which they did, big time), and if the people closest to Eddie thought he would have wanted it then I don't mind it to this day. But shoehorning Rey into the main event was unneeded and made me(biggest Rey fan back then) lose my love for him.

If I had to describe 2006 WWE in one word: Excess. There was a lot of stuff going on, some really bad and some really good, and it was all blended together. On the upside, TNA was gaining steam and put on a great product.

 

[Codename Bags]

I gotta say, as an 11/12 year old fan I enjoyed 2006. From Kelly Kelly in ECW to getting to see a modern Saturday Night's Main Event, to seeing Wrestlemania 22(still one of my favorites), I'd say 2006 was a pretty cool year where a lot of stuff happened. Anytime I see something from 2006 pop up on the network, I don't hesitate to watch it.