Source: Wrestling Observer Newsletter

According to one person high up, Banks tried to quit over the weekend, as she felt blindsided when finding out at the last minute that they were taking the tag team titles from her and Bayley. She had thought that the two of them would be given a chance to have a strong run and bring credibility to the belts and establish them as serious belts. Then the decision was made to go to the Iiconics, who as champions, could only make the belts seem like gimmick comedy belts. Basically she has been given a few weeks to think things out before sticking to a choice the company believes may have been made as a rash decision. Anyway, that’s been largely confirmed by others but probably will be denied very quickly. A second person said she’s been given time to figure out what she wants to do, whether stay or go, but couldn’t confirm the reason why, but said that she probably wouldn’t have known the finish of that match until late and did believe she and Bayley were going to be given a shot at making the belts mean something. It was noted in particular that the storyline of defending them on Raw, Smackdown and NXT started, so it was logical for them to assume a run of defending in all those places. A third person just said she was clearly unhappy.

Yeah why would you make THAT booking decision in the first place? At least right now. If they tone it down a lot...A LOT...I could at least see Iconics as the ones people want to see lose the belts after a long build-up...but this was still the wrong move at the time.

These motha fuckers HAD to have "every title change hands at WM!"....

KILLdozer wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 09:20 Yeah why would you make THAT booking decision in the first place? At least right now. If they tone it down a lot...A LOT...I could at least see Iconics as the ones people want to see lose the belts after a long build-up...but this was still the wrong move at the time.

These motha fuckers HAD to have "every title change hands at WM!"....

US Title didn't.

to me, this was one of the reasonable bookings, Edgeheads, Hardyz, and Lashley's two week reign, those make no sense to me

but i don't blame Sasha, she's was the hottest thin in the company at one point

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 09:32

KILLdozer wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 09:20 Yeah why would you make THAT booking decision in the first place? At least right now. If they tone it down a lot...A LOT...I could at least see Iconics as the ones people want to see lose the belts after a long build-up...but this was still the wrong move at the time.

These motha fuckers HAD to have "every title change hands at WM!"....

US Title didn't.

i thnk it was still the wm with the most title changes ever

I can see her point. Give them 6 months, defend the championships on all PPV's and against all-comers and establish them. Then have the team tension build between the two, have them eventually drop the belts leading to Sasha vs Bayley feud pushing one (or both) towards Becky or whoever as contender for the title.

Having them for the short period they did is just shocking booking. Not "shocking" as in expected either.

XIV wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 09:41 I can see her point. Give them 6 months, defend the championships on all PPV's and against all-comers and establish them. Then have the team tension build between the two, have them eventually drop the belts leading to Sasha vs Bayley feud pushing one (or both) towards Becky or whoever as contender for the title.

Having them for the short period they did is just shocking booking. Not "shocking" as in expected either.

i take it they want to split them up again between shows. Which could had been a great way to handle those titles since they're floating, Bayley could have a handicap feud on RAW, Sasha one on Smackdown, and then on PPVs they get together to deal with those feuds.

cero2k wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 09:48

XIV wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 09:41 I can see her point. Give them 6 months, defend the championships on all PPV's and against all-comers and establish them. Then have the team tension build between the two, have them eventually drop the belts leading to Sasha vs Bayley feud pushing one (or both) towards Becky or whoever as contender for the title.

Having them for the short period they did is just shocking booking. Not "shocking" as in expected either.

i take it they want to split them up again between shows. Which could had been a great way to handle those titles since they're floating, Bayley could have a handicap feud on RAW, Sasha one on Smackdown, and then on PPVs they get together to deal with those feuds.

The way I understood it was that the champions get to float with the titles.

But either way, taking the titles off them was completely stupid and tells me that we can now definitively add Sasha Banks to the ever-growing list of people who we know would do a much better job of booking WWE than the yahoos who are currently doing so.

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 10:00
The way I understood it was that the champions get to float with the titles.

But either way, taking the titles off them was completely stupid and tells me that we can now definitively add Sasha Banks to the ever-growing list of people who we know would do a much better job of booking WWE than the yahoos who are currently doing so.

well, two quit, so maybe they get replaced with the ever increasing raid of TNA old timers

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 10:00

cero2k wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 09:48

XIV wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 09:41 I can see her point. Give them 6 months, defend the championships on all PPV's and against all-comers and establish them. Then have the team tension build between the two, have them eventually drop the belts leading to Sasha vs Bayley feud pushing one (or both) towards Becky or whoever as contender for the title.

Having them for the short period they did is just shocking booking. Not "shocking" as in expected either.

i take it they want to split them up again between shows. Which could had been a great way to handle those titles since they're floating, Bayley could have a handicap feud on RAW, Sasha one on Smackdown, and then on PPVs they get together to deal with those feuds.

The way I understood it was that the champions get to float with the titles.

But either way, taking the titles off them was completely stupid and tells me that we can now definitively add Sasha Banks to the ever-growing list of people who we know would do a much better job of booking WWE than the yahoos who are currently doing so.

Well, splitting them across brands is no reason to take the titles as they are floating titles, I fail to understand any logic, except maybe they're aiming to get the Australian viewership up.

XIV wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 10:34

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 10:00

cero2k wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 09:48

i take it they want to split them up again between shows. Which could had been a great way to handle those titles since they're floating, Bayley could have a handicap feud on RAW, Sasha one on Smackdown, and then on PPVs they get together to deal with those feuds.

The way I understood it was that the champions get to float with the titles.

But either way, taking the titles off them was completely stupid and tells me that we can now definitively add Sasha Banks to the ever-growing list of people who we know would do a much better job of booking WWE than the yahoos who are currently doing so.

Well, splitting them across brands is no reason to take the titles as they are floating titles, I fail to understand any logic, except maybe they're aiming to get the Australian viewership up.

Then maybe they should get some Australians on their show who are good wrestlers and not horrendously annoying characters. As our own Earth Child wonderfully pointed out, they're not even Australian enough to appeal to real Aussies:
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=20028#p102804


Or here's an idea. If you want a title on one of those two so badly, why didn't you have one of them beat Asuka for her title instead of sticking two titles on Becky and sabotaging the tag titles that need to be cared for and protected in order to establish them?

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 11:21

XIV wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 10:34

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 10:00

The way I understood it was that the champions get to float with the titles.

But either way, taking the titles off them was completely stupid and tells me that we can now definitively add Sasha Banks to the ever-growing list of people who we know would do a much better job of booking WWE than the yahoos who are currently doing so.

Well, splitting them across brands is no reason to take the titles as they are floating titles, I fail to understand any logic, except maybe they're aiming to get the Australian viewership up.

Then maybe they should get some Australians on their show who are good wrestlers and not horrendously annoying characters. As our own Earth Child wonderfully pointed out, they're not even Australian enough to appeal to real Aussies:
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=20028#p102804


Or here's an idea. If you want a title on one of those two so badly, why didn't you have one of them beat Asuka for her title instead of sticking two titles on Becky and sabotaging the tag titles that need to be cared for and protected in order to establish them?

I was coming at it from the perspective of Vince logic. Not actual logic.

XIV wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 13:03

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 11:21

XIV wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 10:34

Well, splitting them across brands is no reason to take the titles as they are floating titles, I fail to understand any logic, except maybe they're aiming to get the Australian viewership up.

Then maybe they should get some Australians on their show who are good wrestlers and not horrendously annoying characters. As our own Earth Child wonderfully pointed out, they're not even Australian enough to appeal to real Aussies:
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=20028#p102804


Or here's an idea. If you want a title on one of those two so badly, why didn't you have one of them beat Asuka for her title instead of sticking two titles on Becky and sabotaging the tag titles that need to be cared for and protected in order to establish them?

I was coming at it from the perspective of Vince logic. Not actual logic.

That's not a safe thing to do. You might fall into the abyss and never be able to come back. Your mind will be permanently broken.


But at least you'll never mistake the kind of belt that holds your pants up for a championship.

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 14:23

XIV wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 13:03

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 11:21
Then maybe they should get some Australians on their show who are good wrestlers and not horrendously annoying characters. As our own Earth Child wonderfully pointed out, they're not even Australian enough to appeal to real Aussies:
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=20028#p102804


Or here's an idea. If you want a title on one of those two so badly, why didn't you have one of them beat Asuka for her title instead of sticking two titles on Becky and sabotaging the tag titles that need to be cared for and protected in order to establish them?

I was coming at it from the perspective of Vince logic. Not actual logic.

That's not a safe thing to do. You might fall into the abyss and never be able to come back. Your mind will be permanently broken.


But at least you'll never mistake the kind of belt that holds your pants up for a championship.

Which takes me to a Cornette Podcast rant on the belts where he basically goes off on a tangent screaming “the Championship is the title of the thing, the belt is the visual representation of that championship... the belt is not a championship it’s a championship belt... the Stanley cup is a f*cking cup which represents the title won. The Super Bowl trophy is a trophy is represents the f*cking championship... there is nothing wrong with calling it a championship belt!”

A rant I entirely agreed with.

XIV wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 15:03

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 14:23

XIV wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 13:03

I was coming at it from the perspective of Vince logic. Not actual logic.

That's not a safe thing to do. You might fall into the abyss and never be able to come back. Your mind will be permanently broken.


But at least you'll never mistake the kind of belt that holds your pants up for a championship.

Which takes me to a Cornette Podcast rant on the belts where he basically goes off on a tangent screaming “the Championship is the title of the thing, the belt is the visual representation of that championship... the belt is not a championship it’s a championship belt... the Stanley cup is a f*cking cup which represents the title won. The Super Bowl trophy is a trophy is represents the f*cking championship... there is nothing wrong with calling it a championship belt!”

A rant I entirely agreed with.

Vince is issue is supposedly more with using "belt" as shorthand for "championship" as in "I'm going to kick your ass and take your belt!"

Cornette is correct, but I see nothing wrong with using "belt" as a shorthand for championship when it's clear from the context what you mean (which is most of the time).

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 15:33

XIV wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 15:03

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Apr 12th, '19, 14:23

That's not a safe thing to do. You might fall into the abyss and never be able to come back. Your mind will be permanently broken.


But at least you'll never mistake the kind of belt that holds your pants up for a championship.

Which takes me to a Cornette Podcast rant on the belts where he basically goes off on a tangent screaming “the Championship is the title of the thing, the belt is the visual representation of that championship... the belt is not a championship it’s a championship belt... the Stanley cup is a f*cking cup which represents the title won. The Super Bowl trophy is a trophy is represents the f*cking championship... there is nothing wrong with calling it a championship belt!”

A rant I entirely agreed with.

Vince is issue is supposedly more with using "belt" as shorthand for "championship" as in "I'm going to kick your ass and take your belt!"

Cornette is correct, but I see nothing wrong with using "belt" as a shorthand for championship when it's clear from the context what you mean (which is most of the time).

Everyone knows what the context is, so the words belt / title belt both acceptable... I understand “strap” that’s a very antiquated southern states saying and perhaps not universal. But everything else should stand.

It’s so obvious now...

Aaliyah and Vanessa Borne. THAT will be Paige’s team.

XIV wrote: ↑Apr 13th, '19, 00:16 It’s so obvious now...

Aaliyah and Vanessa Borne. THAT will be Paige’s team.

No...they're both heels and Paige isn't and that would require an Iconics turn as well.

Her poor attitude is mind boggling.

Yes, they lobbied for the titles to be a thing. Yes, they were told things that didn't pan out... "panning out" isn't exactly WWE's "thing" these days, so I'm shocked that she's shocked (down by the sea shore).

With Rhonda gone, it absolutely blows my mind that instead of trying to position herself in a top spot on Raw or Smackdown, she'd rather take to social media and throw a temper tantrum. Instead of pitching a scenario where Boss/Hug chase the titles, she'd rather be an idiot.

I'm not defending WWE here, but The Iiconics aren't a bad call (they steered clear of the Road To Wrestlemania burials), and I'll continue to be frustrated for Asuke, Bayley, The Revival and such... but Sasha is a piece of shit, a "victim", and I think they should hold the door for her. She's cancer and she looks like a Muppet.