AEW - DECEMBER 2023

[John from Cincinnati]

1 hour ago, Casey said:

Punk wasn’t the only person that needed to be reeled in. No efforts were made to reconcile the two parties. And keep in mind everyone involved works for Tony Khan, no matter if they’re an EVP or not. And speaking of that title - screams professional for three of them to go out there and lampoon Punk and the Brawl Out scenario, but refuse to patch things up and claim it almost made them want to quit the business. What pros!

On top of all this, and I hate to relitigate this forever, I have questions about the report that came out after everything that went down stating the Bucks were willing to work with Punk if he could be cool for six months. Were the terms of his double-secret probation even laid out to him?

[Niners Fan in CT]

8 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

CM Punk has a history of not doing business.

See, you always to be prepared for the other answer or response which is. "No, I am going to do that."  So you either acquiesce or say, "Goodbye." That's pretty much it.

So if Punk says, "No, I'm right in the case...fuck him", is WWE just going to consider that No a "yes, I will cooperate" and go about their merry business? That would be the same thing people would believe AEW would do.

We're making too many predictions and assumptions. 

If everything was easy, Punk would have never been in AEW in the first place and using that as a fuck you to WWE.

You're 100% right about CM Punk and I'll get to that in a second.  What I meant by WWE having a history of getting people to do business is Edge and Matt Hardy or even bringing Cody Rhodes in after all the jabs he threw at them over the years or The Ultimate Warrior or whatever other example there is of fans and journalists thinking a relationship is irreparable and WWE management proving that's not the case.  

You're obviously right that CM Punk could have still said "No Thank You" or The Bucks could have said we aren't doing it but by all reports Tony Khan didn't try that hard to repair it and then he gave CM Punk his own show with creative control which I don't think WWE would have done for a guy that was already burning bridges all over the place. 

[Elsalvajeloco]

15 hours ago, Niners Fan in CT said:

You're 100% right about CM Punk and I'll get to that in a second.  What I meant by WWE having a history of getting people to do business is Edge and Matt Hardy or even bringing Cody Rhodes in after all the jabs he threw at them over the years or The Ultimate Warrior or whatever other example there is of fans and journalists thinking a relationship is irreparable and WWE management proving that's not the case.  

1. We're talking about degrees of fixable and irreparable. For example, you have issues regarding partners and infidelity. Some times they ultimately get corrected and in the case of Joanie Laurer, you're basically persona non grata until you pass away. Listen to Jim Ross anytime he talks about Chyna being on the way out of WWF. Wanting a ton of money was one thing, but the cheating thing she couldn't get over. Thus, the two sides had to part ways.  

We've already talk about Warrior and how WWE being desperate was the reason why he could get multiple chances. That's not something people got wrong. He was constantly on the outs with WWF until they needed someone they felt could draw. Then, once he fell back out of favor or asked them to buy a million copies of his comic book it was over.

Each situation is kinda unique in that way. You never say never, but it goes both ways. Had Joanie lived or gotten her act clean, she probably would have done some WWE related appearances and mended fences. However, there was a good chance she lived and never did anything else with WWE.

Quote

 by all reports Tony Khan didn't try that hard to repair it and then he gave CM Punk his own show with creative control which I don't think WWE would have done for a guy that was already burning bridges all over the place. 

Well, it's a thing of "this could be fractured beyond repair to begin with". And you cannot honestly say what WWE will or will not do, especially knowing that very few people would have put money on WWE signing Punk back to begin with. Moreover, you're not signing CM Punk without ceding some level of creative control or input. 

Hell, you don't know if trying to smooth over things with Punk and whoever is PO'd at him will make it worse. That's the unknown unknown.

[Craig H]

For fucks sake. Niners has been on this board for about forever and I swear it's like talking to a teenager when it would be impossible for him to be a teenager.

[Niners Fan in CT]

Yawn. Lame insults etc. instead of debating the point.  The poster No Flips had the decency to say "I don't agree with everything you said about these issues but many are valid and we should discuss them."  This is the AEW discussion thread after all. 

[Casey]

I think the argument about tickets underperforming is a bit of a leap, personally. The current setup for this week’s Dynamite is a little over 4,400 and they’ve sold 3,616 so far. It looks like mainly the upper decks are left. Walk-ups are definitely a thing, especially for PPVs. World’s End is in two weeks, and they’re at around 7k for that I think. As with the 12/20 Dynamite, really only the upper decks are left.

Revolution is doing gangbusters. Yeah, it’s off the back of Sting’s retirement, but it’s also in an area that hasn’t seen a PPV since 2001 (!!) I believe. The demand is there, Sting just adds more to it.

I don’t think anyone is denying that WWE is hotter right now. A year or two ago, the reverse was true. Who knows who’ll be hot in 3 months, or 6, or a year from now. Maybe neither will be. Maybe both. It’s going to fluctuate, that’s just the nature of having two big national companies at once.

As for the Saturday ratings.. say what you want, but 400k on average in prime time on a weekend on cable for wrestling is pretty good. For all the rumors about RAW going to TBS/TNT, nobody in the sheets has once said that Warner is unhappy with Collision’s ratings as far as I’m aware. And they asked for this, too.

[Craig H]

51 minutes ago, Niners Fan in CT said:

Yawn. Lame insults etc. instead of debating the point.  The poster No Flips had the decency to say "I don't agree with everything you said about these issues but many are valid and we should discuss them."  This is the AEW discussion thread after all. 

Your level of intelligence is exceedingly low when it comes to making a hyperbolic statement and then trying to dig your way out of it. Others succinctly pointed out how ridiculous it is to say, "This company looks like a sinking ship right now.  Nothing going right." Nothing about the company looks like a sinking ship. Kenny has been a non-factor in singles competition since returning from injury. He's good for an outstanding singles match here and there, but the dude has to rely on tags and trios to stay healthy. Others already pointed out the nonsense regarding the "3 biggest stars leaving" thing. And you keep bringing up ticket sales for the shows when that hasn't really been an issue. The company did so much business with All In both in buyrates and attendance that All Out could have had 0 buys and the company would have still been ahead.

There is absolutely no debating any points with you because much like everything else, *COUGHSASHACOUGH* your heels are so firmly dug into the ground that it's just an endless, circular argument. If I wanted to have a conversation or "debate" with someone, I'd do it with someone with the capability to not consistently move goalposts, only address one single issue out of many that get brought up, and actually display the ability to understand another point of view. And while it's unfair for someone to incorrectly point out that all you do is throw cold water on the product because you do, in fact, not comment all that often anymore, when you do, it is typically some dumb bullshit that Vile One would have already regurgitated and it's the same stupid shit you'd see on r/scjerk or hear on a Cornette podcast. When and if you show some modicum of understanding or self-awareness then it would be worth debating anything with you. To date though, it's always the same shit with you. Come in with hyperbole, try to backpeddle or move goalposts, wind up in an endless argument. 

Had you come in here to say something like, I don't know, damn, that sucks, hope he gets better and I suppose that may be one reason why he wasn't in the C2 or doing much as of late or looked off his fucking rocker on Dynamite, but at least there's other hands on deck to carry the load, then yeah, it's easier to have a discussion. When you come in like Skip Bayless like it's any day of the week ending in "day" then yeah, you're going to get some heat and it shouldn't surprise you.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Craig H

[StretchMediatedHypertrophy]

8 hours ago, NoFistsJustFlips said:

1) Christian has only had the TNT title like two months now. Don't get confused and lump Luchasaurus' reign as his lol

2) To emphasize the point a bit, what would have changed if the titles were swapped? Could Christian's story been the same with the International Title? 

1) The lol makes the point that Christian walking around with the belt added an extra wrinkle to his character.

2) Samoa Joe couldn't have: he was the King of Television remember. And no OC couldn't have told the same story with the TNT Title because he took what was the obvious No. 3 belt and made it the No. 2 belt. 

[Niners Fan in CT]

9 hours ago, Craig H said:

Your level of intelligence is exceedingly low when it comes to making a hyperbolic statement and then trying to dig your way out of it.

Nonsense. I began to discuss how attendance has dropped across the board in some arenas by 50% or more from the last time they were there but you didn't want to hear it.  You didn't want to hear about how Collision started off in the 800Ks and many weeks later is dipping below 400K.   It's not ridiculous to point out how well Cody has done in WWE and how much he added to the house show business for WWE.  

I didn't once "move a goalpost" because there's no need for it.  The numbers are right there and you want to look the other way, that's fine.  Nobody ASKED you to jump in and hurl insults,  nobody here was asked to do that.  

Not once have I had to resort to insults. You want to talk about "intelligence" but you show yourself to have to stoop to hurling insults like a protective superfan instead of having a real conversation.  

Also, it's complete nonsense that all I do is throw cold water on everything.  I can go get the receipts right now.  Most of my posts from this year are after an AEW PPV where I discuss how great it was.  Nice try, if you need the receipts I will gladly go them just to show how wrong you are. 

[NoFistsJustFlips]

7 hours ago, StretchMediatedHypertrophy said:

1) The lol makes the point that Christian walking around with the belt added an extra wrinkle to his character.

2) Samoa Joe couldn't have: he was the King of Television remember. And no OC couldn't have told the same story with the TNT Title because he took what was the obvious No. 3 belt and made it the No. 2 belt. 

1) Christian could have been carrying around any title. There's nothing about the story that dictated Luchasaurus needed to win the TNT belt for Christian to walk around with. You're missing the point that literally any belt could have been put into that story and nothing changes.

2) I don't understand your Samoa Joe mention here. But since your brought him up, his reign ended by voluntary forfeit. Couldn't he have done the voluntary forfeit sooner and ROH TV Title be the belt chosen to do the Christian story?

3) How is The International Title being number 3 at the start obvious? How is it being the number 2 title now obvious? None of that is obvious. It's a matter of opinion because AEW has never defined what title is where in a hierarchy. Well Mox & OC main evented All Out with it you might say. Ok. Christian & Darby main evented Wrestle Dream with the TNT Title. It's not at all clear or obvious what belt is considered number 2 by AEW themselves.

[StretchMediatedHypertrophy]

23 minutes ago, NoFistsJustFlips said:

1) Christian could have been carrying around any title. There's nothing about the story that dictated Luchasaurus needed to win the TNT belt for Christian to walk around with. You're missing the point that literally any belt could have been put into that story and nothing changes.

2) I don't understand your Samoa Joe mention here. But since your brought him up, his reign ended by voluntary forfeit. Couldn't he have done the voluntary forfeit sooner and ROH TV Title be the belt chosen to do the Christian story?

3) How is The International Title being number 3 at the start obvious? How is it being the number 2 title now obvious? None of that is obvious. It's a matter of opinion because AEW has never defined what title is where in a hierarchy. Well Mox & OC main evented All Out with it you might say. Ok. Christian & Darby main evented Wrestle Dream with the TNT Title. It's not at all clear or obvious what belt is considered number 2 by AEW themselves.

1) I haven't missed that point at all. But the International Title was in another program so this was the one available, plus he was in a program with Darby who has a particular history with the TNT Title and indeed was the TNT Champion that Luchasaurus Killswitch beat (Actually, I got that bit wrong, he beat Wardlow. Yeah they changed it too much over that period lol - though they did end up feuding with Darbs again). As I have said, it added an amusing wrinkle to Christian's character at a point when the Patriachy wasn't fully formed.

2) No his TNT reign didn't end that way, and no the ROH TV couldn't have been used for the Christian story for the reasons above.

3) Again, I understand why some people might benefit from this kind of clarity but I honestly don't think the average viewer particularly craves it. I don't think viewers had a tremendous issue when there was no brand-split in WWE and two midcard titles - often one or more of those titles wasn't especially well booked, but the existence of two midcard titles wasn't really a problem. 

Edited December 18, 2023 by StretchMediatedHypertrophy

[Technico Support]

17 hours ago, JLowe said:

She wants to be a star, not a wrestler. That’s what’s missing.

She had like two and a half years in a locker room with experts in work, promos, psychology, etc.  Either she never asked for help or she did but couldn't put it together.  Both are a problem.  But after two and a half years, if your matches are still glorified squashes and your promos are just variations on your catchphrase, something's not going right.  You may have something there about wanting to be a star and not necessarily a wrestler.  When you come from a non-wrestling background, making money and getting famous can definitely feel more important then, you know, being good at this.

17 hours ago, Niners Fan in CT said:

I just don't think 'Brawl Out' and the aftermath is handled the same way in current WWE and I believe the end result in WWE is a CM Punk vs. Young Bucks feud where they all make money from it.  They are all under contract, I think WWE gets them all in a room and says "knock it off and let's make some money off this" like they are doing with CM Punk and Seth Rollins, although I'm unclear as to how much those two dislike one another, reports say it's real but who knows. 

I despise the gross, cynical view that they should have all "put their differences aside to make money."  It's so fucking carny.  The Bucks are human beings and if they decide they don't want to work with a guy who tried to assault them, that's their right.  Stop romanticizing the way things used to be done.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Technico Support

[odessasteps]

Quote

Either she never asked for help or she did but couldn't put it together.

Would seemingly apply to many people in that locker room, especially the former.

[Niners Fan in CT]

27 minutes ago, Technico Support said:

I despise the gross, cynical view that they should have all "put their differences aside to make money."  It's so fucking carny.  The Bucks are human beings and if they decide they don't want to work with a guy who tried to assault them, that's their right.  Stop romanticizing the way things used to be done.

I won't argue that, I agree with some of what you said but in my view at the very least promoters should think twice before giving talent full creative control of their characters.  Aside from this issue, you have guys like Miro who don't like any of the angles pitched, don't want to job to anyone (these are all things reported by various sources) and what are you left with?  A guy that you are paying decently whom didn't like anything and just flounders in the midcard in angles that aren't going anywhere.  CM Punk might be the most notorious case in the company of creative control gone wrong but there's several others.  Apparently the whole 'gamer' gimmick was Miro's idea too and they wasted months on that. 

[NoFistsJustFlips]

2 hours ago, StretchMediatedHypertrophy said:

3) Again, I understand why some people might benefit from this kind of clarity but I honestly don't think the average viewer particularly craves it. I don't think viewers had a tremendous issue when there was no brand-split in WWE and two midcard titles - often one or more of those titles wasn't especially well booked, but the existence of two midcard titles wasn't really a problem. 

It's apples and oranges because wehn WWE debuted the European Title the IC Title had a 15 year history of being the number 2 title. It had always been portrayed as the springboard to stardom. Savage, Warrior, Bret Hart, & HBK had all had reigns that defined that title's importance and was important steps in their journey upward. AEW didn't have that established history. Zero TNT champions went on to be AEW World Champion. When WWE debuted the US Title it's purpose was clear, it was Smackdown's version of the IC title. A number two for the number two brand.

WWE is very good about giving purpose and meaning to titles that debuted. Even ones you knew weren't important. Like The Hardcore Title & 24/7 Title. You knew why they were there and if they were important (they werent). Even now. We all know Reigns' title is the top title. But when the new WHC was created everyone instantly knew it was there to be the top title for Raw. IC & US both have more history and prestige than a new title, but they explained what the purpose of this new title was.

I thunk ultimately this is an agree to disagree discussion. Because your viewpoint is that most viewers don't care about that kind of thing. And my viewpoint is that they do. Everyone pretty much universally pans the Invasion angle and one of the biggest complaints is that there were too many belts. There's actually more titles in AEW & ROH right now than there was in 2001 for WWE & WCW. That's crazy. But again no disrespect meant if you don't agree. We just have two different starting points for what we think the audience cares about.

[Zakk_Sabbath]

World titles are like quarterbacks - if you have two, you have none. I know it's irrational, and yeah, maybe the audience at large may not give a shit, but I'm in total agreement about the necessity for a title hierarchy. I'm about as big a belt mark as they come but it's almost reached parody

[NoFistsJustFlips]

1 hour ago, Technico Support said:

She had like two and a half years in a locker room with experts in work, promos, psychology, etc.  Either she never asked for help or she did but couldn't put it together.  Both are a problem.  But after two and a half years, if your matches are still glorified squashes and your promos are just variations on your catchphrase, something's not going right.  You may have something there about wanting to be a star and not necessarily a wrestler.  When you come from a non-wrestling background, making money and getting famous can definitely feel more important then, you know, being good at this.

There's a long standing history of some of the most money making stars in the business not being good in the ring at all. We're a generation or two past that now. But to say it can't be done again I think is a little naive. You either have the It Factor or you don't. Ultimate Warrior had it. Goldberg had it. Jade has it. You don't HAVE TO BE the most technically sound worker to get over and make yourself & the company a bunch of money. Everyone agrees Jade has that aura. And AEW knew it too. They debuted her in a celebrity match with Shaq. They gave her a win streak. But they just never pulled the trigger on her having a run on top of the division. WWE is going to make a ton of money for her and off of her. But no one knows if she's gonna be Goldberg or if she's gonna be Ryback. Gotta give her that sink or swim moment. And AEW just never did.

Hey maybe with hindsight we'll all be able to say AEW were right. But I think the easy money is on WWE being able to get that top of the division run out of her when the time is right.

[NoFistsJustFlips]

2 hours ago, Technico Support said:

I despise the gross, cynical view that they should have all "put their differences aside to make money."  It's so fucking carny.  The Bucks are human beings and if they decide they don't want to work with a guy who tried to assault them, that's their right.  Stop romanticizing the way things used to be done.

But actually it's not their right. They are employees of a company. I don't get to go into work and be like I can't stand this person I'm not gonna work with them today. I get fired if I do that. It's not gross or cynical at all to say if you're going to stay employed here you have to listen to your boss and do the job he asks you to do. We can all litigate Brawl Out to we're all blue in the face. But they didn't have to storm into Punk's locker room that night. Even if Punk was outrageously out of line with his comments at the scrum (he was), and even if he threw the first punch (all accounts say he did), they're guilty here too. If I storm up to someone who said something negative about me at work and an altercation breaks out, we're all getting fired. Because I was in the wrong too.

This idealistic thought that they shouldn't be made to work with someone they don't like is unrealistic. They should be made to work with whoever the boss thinks will make the most money with them. And if they don't like it they don't have to stay. They get paid seven figures a year. Maybe eight now after their renewal. They don't also get to cherry pick every aspect of their work day.

[Technico Support]

47 minutes ago, NoFistsJustFlips said:

There's a long standing history of some of the most money making stars in the business not being good in the ring at all. We're a generation or two past that now. But to say it can't be done again I think is a little naive. You either have the It Factor or you don't. Ultimate Warrior had it. Goldberg had it. Jade has it. You don't HAVE TO BE the most technically sound worker to get over and make yourself & the company a bunch of money. Everyone agrees Jade has that aura. And AEW knew it too. They debuted her in a celebrity match with Shaq. They gave her a win streak. But they just never pulled the trigger on her having a run on top of the division. WWE is going to make a ton of money for her and off of her. But no one knows if she's gonna be Goldberg or if she's gonna be Ryback. Gotta give her that sink or swim moment. And AEW just never did.

Hey maybe with hindsight we'll all be able to say AEW were right. But I think the easy money is on WWE being able to get that top of the division run out of her when the time is right.

Sure, anything can be done again and have a chance of succeeding.  But Goldberg was a quarter century ago and Warrior was nearly a decade before that.  I think (hope?) that fans, especially in this more plugged-in age, are a little smarter to the work and are more savvy to see that the emperor has no clothes.  Also, it seems that nobody can stick the landing with unstoppable monsters.  Neither Goldberg nor Warrior had lasting success (not counting nostalgia runs) outside their initial pushes.  So even if WWE goes back to that playbook with Jade, that doesn't bode well for long term.  Of course, she could turn into a prodigy at the PC.  Who knows?

Edited December 18, 2023 by Technico Support

[Technico Support]

4 minutes ago, NoFistsJustFlips said:

But actually it's not their right. They are employees of a company. I don't get to go into work and be like I can't stand this person I'm not gonna work with them today. I get fired if I do that. It's not gross or cynical at all to say if you're going to stay employed here you have to listen to your boss and do the job he asks you to do. We can all litigate Brawl Out to we're all blue in the face. But they didn't have to storm into Punk's locker room that night. Even if Punk was outrageously out of line with his comments at the scrum (he was), and even if he threw the first punch (all accounts say he did), they're guilty here too. If I storm up to someone who said something negative about me at work and an altercation breaks out, we're all getting fired. Because I was in the wrong too.

This idealistic thought that they shouldn't be made to work with someone they don't like is unrealistic. They should be made to work with whoever the boss thinks will make the most money with them. And if they don't like it they don't have to stay. They get paid seven figures a year. Maybe eight now after their renewal. They don't also get to cherry pick every aspect of their work day.

You can have an argument with a coworker.  If said coworker's reaction to the argument is deciding to punch you in the face, he is in the wrong and you are well within your rights to tell your boss you do not want to be anywhere near that person ever again, and that's IF your boss doesn't have the sense to fire that person.  Wrestling is no longer 1970s Memphis or Mid South or whatever.  These are actual companies today, with legal departments, human resources, and the like.  Wrestlers have legal recourse and are not chattel to be "made to work with whoever the boss thinks will make the most money with them."  And there's a clear difference between a worker being difficult and rejecting angles and what the Bucks did.  Come on.

When I said we need to stop romanticizing the way wrestling used to be, you're definitely one of the people I had in mind. 

 

 

[StretchMediatedHypertrophy]

24 minutes ago, NoFistsJustFlips said:

I thunk ultimately this is an agree to disagree discussion. Because your viewpoint is that most viewers don't care about that kind of thing. And my viewpoint is that they do. Everyone pretty much universally pans the Invasion angle and one of the biggest complaints is that there were too many belts. There's actually more titles in AEW & ROH right now than there was in 2001 for WWE & WCW. That's crazy. But again no disrespect meant if you don't agree. We just have two different starting points for what we think the audience cares about.

It is to some extent, but I don't really have to prove a negative. You haven't really evidenced your position in any way. And I wasn't talking about the Euro Title, I was talking about the considerable period where both IC and US Titles existed without a brand-split.

'One of the biggest complaints' is a slightly vague claim, but it certainly isn't the biggest complaint about the Invasion and tbh I don't think it's even top 3.

[Zakk_Sabbath]

9 minutes ago, Technico Support said:

Sure, anything can be done again and have a chance of succeeding.  But Goldberg was a quarter century ago and Warrior was nearly a decade before that.  I think (hope?) that fans, especially in this more plugged-in age, are a little smarter to the work and are more savvy to see that the emperor has no clothes.  Also, it seems that nobody can stick the landing with unstoppable monsters.  Neither Goldberg nor Warrior consistent success (not counting nostalgia runs) outside their initial pushes.  So even if WWE goes back to that playbook with Jade, that doesn't bode well for long term.  Of course, she could turn into a prodigy at the PC.  Who knows?

Totally anecdotal but I have three non-fan friends who already knew of her from the bodybuilding/fitness modeling world, so while I don't think she's got 250K fans who will follow her anywhere like a Punk or someone, she does have a built-in social media following to at least a small degree. Even if you can't convert that to dollars in the ring/in the traditional sense, I'm sure there are a number of peripheral, Bella Twin-esque ways of getting a return on that investment with her either through reality TV or some other medium.

[NoFistsJustFlips]

6 minutes ago, StretchMediatedHypertrophy said:

It is to some extent, but I don't really have to prove a negative. You haven't really evidenced your position in any way. And I wasn't talking about the Euro Title, I was talking about the considerable period where both IC and US Titles existed without a brand-split.

'One of the biggest complaints' is a slightly vague claim, but it certainly isn't the biggest complaint about the Invasion and tbh I don't think it's even top 3.

This is seemingly becoming a very circular discussion because I list out reasons and supporting thoughts and you just go nuu uhhh.

The bolded above again is apples to oranges. The IC Title has always clearly been the most important non world title in WWE. They have always given that heightened importance over any other non-world title. So there was a time that existed (ten years after the US title debuted) that both were secondary titles under the same unified brand that you're referencing... it was never in doubt the IC Title was always more important than the US Title. Again this doesn't even fit what the original argument was about. Because they explained the purpose of The US Title and where it lied in the hierarchy when it debuted, ten years before the time frame you're asking about.

As for the second part, maybe it's an age thing. I was online during the Invasion. It was absolutely the number two complaint behind WWE not securing the biggest WCW stars for the Invasion. It got railed against all the time at the time. If you're younger and didn't live through that period online I could see how that could be in doubt for you. But if you visited any message boards in 2001 it was a consistent source of complaint and frustration.

[StretchMediatedHypertrophy]

8 minutes ago, NoFistsJustFlips said:

This is seemingly becoming a very circular discussion because I list out reasons and supporting thoughts and you just go nuu uhhh.

The bolded above again is apples to oranges. The IC Title has always clearly been the most important non world title in WWE. They have always given that heightened importance over any other non-world title. So there was a time that existed (ten years after the US title debuted) that both were secondary titles under the same unified brand that you're referencing... it was never in doubt the IC Title was always more important than the US Title. Again this doesn't even fit what the original argument was about. Because they explained the purpose of The US Title and where it lied in the hierarchy when it debuted, ten years before the time frame you're asking about.

As for the second part, maybe it's an age thing. I was online during the Invasion. It was absolutely the number two complaint behind WWE not securing the biggest WCW stars for the Invasion. It got railed against all the time at the time. If you're younger and didn't live through that period online I could see how that could be in doubt for you. But if you visited any message boards in 2001 it was a consistent source of complaint and frustration.

The word seemingly is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. You have gone from dismissing views of AEW belt hierarchy as subjective, to essentially basing objectivity over some moment you can't really reference where 'they' seemingly made it clear that the US Title was below the IC Title in importance, and by implication you are arguing that most viewers permanently internalised this magical moment.....somehow even the kids who would have been too young to have even watched that. This is a ludicrous argument. The truth is that there is no strict hierarchy, you have a subjective opinion about it. That's it.

And now we're talking about internet fans from the early 2000s as somehow representative of the casual fan. Wow. Yes I was there. This is Hyatte. I member.
 

[Niners Fan in CT]

57 minutes ago, Technico Support said:

You can have an argument with a coworker.  If said coworker's reaction to the argument is deciding to punch you in the face, he is in the wrong and you are well within your rights to tell your boss you do not want to be anywhere near that person ever again, and that's IF your boss doesn't have the sense to fire that person. 

Not every job works the same way.   Draymond Green punched Jordan Poole in the face at practice because they got into an argument.  Do you really believe Jordan Poole had any leverage in that situation where he can ask the front office to get rid of Green?  They had to patch things up for the betterment of the team for that season and move on.  Wrestling is not an office job either.  It's fine that the Bucks decided they didn't want to work with Punk and do an angle but Tony Khan's job as a promoter is to see if things can be worked out (yes, for monetary reasons and also for the health of the work environment in general).  Instead Tony gives Punk his own show where Punk could seemingly tell certain performers they weren't allowed to be on that show and have creative control.  That was somehow Tony's best answer to the issue.