KB Answers Wrestling Questions | Page 523 | WrestleZone Forums

KB Answers Wrestling Questions

Care to explain?

One night on Raw Smith was gone for no apparent reason whatsoever. Someone made a thread suggesting it was due to a wellness violation and it got on the list of threads on the main page. I believe it was Sly that got a PM from someone claiming to be Hart-Smith's agent saying that Hart-Smith had seen it and it wasn't a wellness violation and that it needed to be taken down. It seemed odd to me that someone would rib Sly over something that simple, and I think he thought it was legit too but I can't remember.
 
One night on Raw Smith was gone for no apparent reason whatsoever. Someone made a thread suggesting it was due to a wellness violation and it got on the list of threads on the main page. I believe it was Sly that got a PM from someone claiming to be Hart-Smith's agent saying that Hart-Smith had seen it and it wasn't a wellness violation and that it needed to be taken down. It seemed odd to me that someone would rib Sly over something that simple, and I think he thought it was legit too but I can't remember.

Wow, that's nuts.
 
Do you think that the Money in the Bank contract was originally meant to be used the way it has become famous for - the unexpected cash in for a match anywhere and anytime?

Or was it supposed to be used the way RVD and then Cena used it and later someone thought that the wording they used could be construed for Edge to do what he did to Cena at NYR 2006?
 
If kayfabe worked logically, would MITB still be a thing? Clearly the chaos doesn't produce the most deserving title contenders possible. At the very least, shouldn't the "cash in when the champion is vulnerable" loophole be closed?

But yeah, kayfabe and logic. I'm a huge snob, or something.

Which match are you most looking forward to at this year's Mania?
 
Барбоса;4360031 said:
Do you think that the Money in the Bank contract was originally meant to be used the way it has become famous for - the unexpected cash in for a match anywhere and anytime?

Or was it supposed to be used the way RVD and then Cena used it and later someone thought that the wording they used could be construed for Edge to do what he did to Cena at NYR 2006?

I think a mixture of both. Unfortunately it's gotten so one sided that it's almost a cliche now.

If kayfabe worked logically, would MITB still be a thing? Clearly the chaos doesn't produce the most deserving title contenders possible. At the very least, shouldn't the "cash in when the champion is vulnerable" loophole be closed?

But yeah, kayfabe and logic. I'm a huge snob, or something.

Which match are you most looking forward to at this year's Mania?

Ah kayfabe. I've heard legends about that concept.

Probably the Shield match. Their others have all been good to excellent.
 
Speaking of the MITB thing. Do you think they should use several other concepts for a cash-in besides 'champion is weak, cash in now' scenario.

E.g. The MITB holder gets a title shot against the champion and nearly beats him but loses, then cashes in right after. Similar concept but vastly different execution

Also do you reckon a MITB holder should decisively lose their match to try and keep the concept fresh.
 
I think a mixture of both. Unfortunately it's gotten so one sided that it's almost a cliche now.

I think that it suffered greatly from Edge's opportunistic cash in - not at the time but in the long run.

Sure, Cena and to a lesser extent RVD were 'honourable' in cashing in the way they did but they were also stupid and once a face CM Punk cashed in the 'cheap' way and did not turn heel, the concept was greatly undermined. The 'heel' way suddenly became not just the 'clever' way but also the 'right' way. Only with Punk's second cash in has the contract been really kick-started something decent outside of a different guy with one of the big titles.

The fact that they then went to having two of the matches made it worse.
 
Барбоса;4360099 said:
I think that it suffered greatly from Edge's opportunistic cash in - not at the time but in the long run.

Sure, Cena and to a lesser extent RVD were 'honourable' in cashing in the way they did but they were also stupid and once a face CM Punk cashed in the 'cheap' way and did not turn heel, the concept was greatly undermined. The 'heel' way suddenly became not just the 'clever' way but also the 'right' way. Only with Punk's second cash in has the contract been really kick-started something decent outside of a different guy with one of the big titles.

The fact that they then went to having two of the matches made it worse.

All true. There have been what, 11 or so cashins and two have been regular matches? That's overkill and going to two a year made it even worse.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,846
Messages
3,300,837
Members
21,727
Latest member
alvarosamaniego
Back
Top