Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

THE 2020 WWE DRAFT - 10/9 & 10/12/2020


Kang

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Casey said:

Am I missing something? It's entirely possible I'm not understanding this - I just woke up so excuse me if I'm wrong or anything. The Smackdown titles are still on Smackdown, same with RAW. The lineage didn't change according to WWE, both teams forfeited their reigns and began new ones with the titles they now hold. It's not like the red belts traveled to the blue brand and vice versa, it's only the teams that switched brands. So the titles are still tied to the same brands they have been.

I was wondering how WWE make sense of the title trade for the belt histories.  

And, now that they've explained it.... I'm still wondering how they'll make sense of it.

I'm sure I'd have follow-up questions, but at this point, I'm probably just better off whacking my thumb with a hammer,

What I watched of the show seemed inoffensive until the women's battle royal.  Thought that was kinda bad.  The last four (five) women being four people you'd never expect to win a battle royal on tv kinda tipped off that something was odd.  Natalya and Lacey Evans playing a contrived game of Twister on the apron instead of actually trying to get back in or shake the other person loose was... something. 

My wife walked by during Lana's victory and wanted to know what was up with the bright pink "clown lips"  (her words, not mine).  I probably enjoyed that more than the battle royal.  

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Casey said:

Am I missing something? It's entirely possible I'm not understanding this - I just woke up so excuse me if I'm wrong or anything. The Smackdown titles are still on Smackdown, same with RAW. The lineage didn't change according to WWE, both teams forfeited their reigns and began new ones with the titles they now hold. It's not like the red belts traveled to the blue brand and vice versa, it's only the teams that switched brands. So the titles are still tied to the same brands they have been.

Except for the fact that apparently the RAW tag titles are actually the Smackdown tag titles that were created in the original draft almost TWENTY YEARS AGO (!!).

That last bit blows my mind.

Unless I missed something while idly half watching Raw with my finger on fast forward, they only changed back to the right brands because the two sets of champs happened to agree to the idea. If they hadn't, I assume they would have remained on the wrong brand. As it is, there'd be nothing to stop that happening in a future draft. Or to stop one brand grabbing both sets of a particular title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SturmCRF said:

Unless I missed something while idly half watching Raw with my finger on fast forward, they only changed back to the right brands because the two sets of champs happened to agree to the idea. If they hadn't, I assume they would have remained on the wrong brand. As it is, there'd be nothing to stop that happening in a future draft. Or to stop one brand grabbing both sets of a particular title.

For a moment, I imagined a scenario where New Day managed to get the Raw belts ib their possession before forfeiting the SD titles, but taking off running with both sets of titles a la Truth with the 24/7 title.  They dodge matches with the actual champs for almost a month, but somehow defend against a team, say, some Raw or Smackdown equivalent of the B-Team, and Adsm Pearce has to then recognize them as dual title holders.

Then I thought, gah, that's kinda dumb.

Then I thought, not as dumb as what actually happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahhahaa they can't even go ONE SHOW without tearing the brand split down. How long until we get the return of the WILDCARD rule? What's the build to Survivor Series going to be like with everyone so passionate about defending the brand they just got drafted to?

This is worse than the dying days of WCW...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2020 at 12:06 AM, The Natural said:

 

I think when it comes to pin pointing  when the WWE's decline started you'd have to go back to I guess when the TVPG era started exactly. It's been a slow gradual build to where we are now. The only difference between now and any other year is the people in the WWE have finally gotten to live their dream of a wrestling show with no fans. They can pipe whatever cheers/boos they want.

I don't think we are at WCW 2000. We're like WCW late 1998-early 99. You have to look at the entire picture. I mean the booking of Roman Reigns from WM32 to now could be several books. 

This had to be the worst draft they've ever done. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...