Triple H's new directive

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Crayo, Jul 18, 2012.

  2. oh god more shameful :((
  3. It's a good idea, the longer the title is held the more prestigious changes appear. I'd choose a different cast but the script is very good.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. What Seabs said. This makes title changes mean more once they happen. We might groan at a longer Sheamus and to some extent Punk reign but imagine the impact once the title changes hands.
  5. "You better not get that strap off my boy Sheamus or you're fired!" :bury:

    Nah, it's a very good idea, I just wish the champs were different.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Punk has had his quite awhile I'd say, but then again, looks like he's about to lose it anyway. I didn't expect Sheamus to lose his to Del Rio. I really hope this doesn't mean that all champions are gonna always have long title reigns under Triple H's directive, though. Long title reigns are only good when done once and awhile. Most of the time, I prefer them to be the usual 3-6 month title reign period.
  7. I like this idea. Now the WWE Championship won't be a slut and let everyone take a turn, if you catch my drift. :jericho: And seriously though, it's a good idea. It seems like Triple H finally understands that the titles need more prestige and longer title reigns than they have been getting, and he is taking some action to that now. Now, the real question is who will be the new up-and-coming challengers, and will Superstars like Dolph Ziggler (people who have just begun their main event scene) get long World Title reigns right away, or will they be built up before and then receive the Championship Gold around their belt for long periods of time? Also hope that this marks the start of a new revolution... lol It probably won't be marking one, though, despite this being the WWE, where anything can happen...There probably won't be a revolution until Linda McMahon stops running for the State Senate r whatever...
  8. I'm quite optimistic about HHH's run when Vince finally goes to be honest.
  9. So am I, the first improvement that comes to mind is the storyline consistency. Vince doesn't care about it but I'm sure Hunter does (more than VKM at least).
  10. Agreed. Apparently -- judging by reports -- he's the reason Ambrose hasn't debuted yet as he wants him to have a proper storyline. Still hope to see him at RAW 1000.
  11. I still think he'll attack Foley. And this thing about development folks not debuting before they have a storyline is great, otherwise they debut, and it doesn't matter if they win or lose, they'll just stay around doing nothing, probably going to Superstars after a while and just doing nothing. Either that or they win the world title in two months. :hmm:
  12. Agreed and I'm not sure, I'm convinced it's dropped :((.

    Foley's on RAW next week though right?
  13. Right, he is. I'm just hoping for the best. :jericho:
  14. Great idea!!! Imagine how hard you will mark when some one finally beats sheamus!!
    Also when people say in 12 time WWE champion! Yeah you also lost it 12 times!
    With this prestige shouldnt be about how many times youve held it, it should be for how long.
    Id like to see HHH play a permenent heel GM, If not scrap the GM idea its just not working because they have no authority.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. HHH in charge era has begun
  16. Yeah, I mean people like Cena have held the title what like 11 times? Remember when Booker T being the 5 time champ was impressive? That's because they didn't play hot potato with the belts back then.
  17. Tbh title reigns have never impressed me based upon number, Rock was a 7 time champion from 98 to 2002, Austin was 6 in the same time span. Then you had guys like Trips holding the belt multiple times in a similar time span. I'd rather they went back to the 80's mould heels and faces had long reigns, which made it feel special when changes happened. Also cut the amount of PPVs / defences a guy defends the belt 13 times if he holds it for 1 year. Why not have the WWE title main event one PPV, then be off with the WHC being defended bar Summerslam and WM when both are defended? Also the odd short change I'm cool with if it's a surprise, such as Punk cashing in after Hardy had won.
  18. They did play hot potato with the belt a lot in 2000 WCW.
  19. Yeah, well it is hard to judge WCW during its end for quality.
  20. That's a good idea but they need to draw buys. Without changing the product and actually investing in different interesting storylines for each division then it won't happen.