Author Topic: Guys better without the belt?  (Read 1734 times)

mass 04

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11039
Guys better without the belt?
« on: October 16, 2010, 06:41:47 PM »
Some guys like Flair, Hogan, Savage etc.. were great champs while others I think were more entertaining without/chasing it.. Guys like Austin, Undertaker, Orton, Rhodes are better without it. Heels don't really "chase" the title but heels like Rock were much better without it.. It's impossible to judge guys like Dibiase, Perfect, etc.. but what is your opinion?

The Showstoppa

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26879
  • Call the vet, cause these pythons are sick!
Re: Guys better without the belt?
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2010, 08:29:25 PM »
I always thought the heel being the champ with faces chasing, in general, was best. 

Montague

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14614
  • The black degelation does not know this nig - V.G.
Re: Guys better without the belt?
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2010, 08:11:29 AM »
I always felt that Hogan “needed” the belt; it was that much a part of his character.
To me, Hulkster definintely seemed better with it.

Austin’s pursuit of the title from HBK was extremely entertaining.
I still remember the segments where he threw his I.C. belt into the river, as well as when he stole Shawn’s belt - replacing it with one of the souvenir foam replicas.
But, Austin was still entertaining as hell after that during his feud with Vince, so I wouldn‘t say he needed the belt, nor did he even need to chase it.
From that perspective, I think I enjoyed him a little more without the title.

I agree with Tim that the belt looked perfect on Hennig (no pun intended), and Curt should have had the big belt in the Fed at some point.
We can draw comparisons to his I.C. reign, and I don't think that not having a belt ever diminished the Mr. P image.
I never thought Curt was any better with, or without the title.
He was always great.

Savage & Flair also did their belts tremendous justice.
The expensive, sequined robes and the way they made a big ritual out of removing them and the belt really added to the extravagance of the title AND the champ.

Also, nothing beat Flair holding the neatly folded NWA strap while wearing his Armani suit, Rolex, gold ring, and $200 sunglasses.
I also remember Flair referring to the new, big gold WCW title costing $40,000.
While many guys simply let the title enhance them, Flair actually enhanced the title...like no other.
But, Flair carved out an incredible reputation for himself.
He didn’t need the belt to “be the man.”


Montague

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14614
  • The black degelation does not know this nig - V.G.
Re: Guys better without the belt?
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2010, 08:12:26 AM »
Is this possibly the last time the title meant anything?



No.
That is the last time HBK had a full head of hair on top.

Playboy

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11315
  • If the bar ain't bending, you're just pretending
Re: Guys better without the belt?
« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2010, 05:21:40 AM »
Some guys like Flair, Hogan, Savage etc.. were great champs while others I think were more entertaining without/chasing it.. Guys like Austin, Undertaker, Orton, Rhodes are better without it. Heels don't really "chase" the title but heels like Rock were much better without it.. It's impossible to judge guys like Dibiase, Perfect, etc.. but what is your opinion?
Guys like Hogan, Flair, Savage were good title holders. They had great drawing power. Guys like Piper, Rhodes & Ted DiBiase Sr were always better as challengers.

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22968
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Guys better without the belt?
« Reply #5 on: October 19, 2010, 06:34:04 PM »
Ultimate Warrior was better as the IC champ than the World champ.

in fact, I think he was arguably at his most popular during the time between WM5 where he lost the IC belt to Rude and SS 89 where he won it back.

the fans were absolutely nuts for him. they couldn't wait for him to win it back off Rude.

Flower Boy Ran Away

Playboy

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11315
  • If the bar ain't bending, you're just pretending
Re: Guys better without the belt?
« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2010, 04:49:19 AM »
Ultimate Warrior was better as the IC champ than the World champ.

in fact, I think he was arguably at his most popular during the time between WM5 where he lost the IC belt to Rude and SS 89 where he won it back.

the fans were absolutely nuts for him. they couldn't wait for him to win it back off Rude.


At WM5, I was excited to see Rude win the IC title off Warrior. Heenan's first title win, how great was that night!

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22968
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Guys better without the belt?
« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2010, 03:18:08 PM »
I agree it was good to see Heenan finally get a champion, I always felt that the match and especially the ending (horrible) sucked.

yet their summerslam 89 rematch was one of the best matches I have ever seen. ever.

Flower Boy Ran Away

The Showstoppa

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26879
  • Call the vet, cause these pythons are sick!
Re: Guys better without the belt?
« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2010, 05:52:19 AM »
At WM5, I was excited to see Rude win the IC title off Warrior. Heenan's first title win, how great was that night!

I assume you mean in WWF, as Heenan was Bockwinkel's manager in the AWA during his title runs.

Playboy

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11315
  • If the bar ain't bending, you're just pretending
Re: Guys better without the belt?
« Reply #9 on: October 21, 2010, 08:50:10 AM »
I assume you mean in WWF, as Heenan was Bockwinkel's manager in the AWA during his title runs.
Yes, WWF.

Best part was no one expected Warrior to lose to Rude. I didn't like the fact that they made Warrior win it back off Rude 5 months later at SS89.