cero2k wrote: ↑Jul 24th, '20, 08:58
Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Jul 23rd, '20, 23:27
Why does he have to lose it beforehand? I think it's better to, but that doesn't mean that you can't tell a story this way, also.
To avoid booking yourself into a half-assed double title reign, it's almost like a swerve to tell your fans that you're crowning a double champion and then undoing it two weeks later.
I'd normally agree with you, but if they have a long-term story in mind that works, I'm happy to give it a pass, and NXT's booking has earned enough good will that I'm inclined to keep an open mind.
That being said, I'm having trouble thinking of a story that would really work that wouldn't either 1) go too long term for it to be a good idea or 2) require Lee to lose the NXT Title way too quickly for a guy you want to be a top babyface just for the sake of having him go after the new North American champion in a "but you never beat me for the belt) angle that pretty much has to end in Lee losing to that guy to avoid invalidating his entire title reign.
Maybe if the real situation is that Vince has said that he wants Lee in three months and the plan is Lee vacaes the NA Title, loses the NXT Title to Kross at SummerSlam TakeOver, loses a rematch to Kross and then loses to the new NA champ. In that case you've only got a limited amount of time with Lee and have no new opponents for Cole so using Lee as a transitional champ to get Kross over and then using him to get the new NA champ over is a good way to use him on the way out (assuming the new NA champ will be a guy who could use the win over Lee, like Grimes, Reed, Thatcher, Priest, Lumis, etc., as opposed to someone like Roddy, Gargano, Ciampa, etc.), and this is a way that not only sets that up in the limited time-frame you have, but also lets you hurt the competition in the process.
cero2k wrote: ↑Jul 24th, '20, 08:58
Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Jul 23rd, '20, 23:27
1. Because relinquishing the title before the match wouldn't be fair to Cole.
2. Because if Lee wants to relinquish the title then there is nothing Regal can do about it. If you're Regal in that situation, than doing this ladder match with the bunch of qualifiers is a fine idea. That doesn't mean Regal thinks it's ideal, but if it's his best available option then why not go with it?
You're not wrong that it's a promo that might have been best cut last week, but last week he was giving his big emotional speech about his grandmother and his recently-deceased trainer, and was planning on putting both titles up at once again Dijakovic. He was giving out an opportunity last week, and if he lost, the decision would be Dijakovic's, not his.
1. Answer me this, who won the title shot? Cole or Keith? If Cole is not the one 'earning' the shot, then he doesn't lose anything. The "title vs title"
2. I'm not saying Regal's excuse is ok, but it contradicts the sentiment being sold two weeks ago.
1. Lee earned the shot by winning a match with the title on the line against two others guys. But if you say whoever won the #1 contendership match would have to vacate the title, why even make it a title match?
And if it's not title vs. title and Cole wins you wind up in the vicious circle situation I've been describing where Cole now deserves a shot at the North American Title, and if Lee retains the title against Cole he'll have earned a shot at the NXT Title, again, etc.
2. Just to clarify, what "sentiment" from Regal are you talking about. To me, Regal didn't know that Lee would do this, and whether he likes it or not, it doesn't do him any good (and does the company some harm) to go out in public and say "I don't like this because I think it will devalue the title, but I will because Lee wants to."
cero2k wrote: ↑Jul 24th, '20, 08:58
I don't buy it, just vacate NA and give Dijak his one-on-one for the world title. Dijak won't be mad, i assure you.
Yes, but Dijak isn't the issue. If Lee is going to defend one title in this match, he might as well defend the other. Otherwise, you've got the same vicious circle because Dijak should also be owed a shot at the other one.
Hell, maybe it just never occurred to Lee until last week that if he's defending both titles at the same time then only one person (or one matches' worth of opponents) can be in the title picture at the same time because, like in NJPW, the belts are de facto unified, even if they aren't unified de jure.
cero2k wrote: ↑Jul 24th, '20, 08:58
Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Jul 23rd, '20, 23:27
cero2k wrote: ↑Jul 23rd, '20, 21:22
It's just bad booking, they're booking day-to-day with no idea of where they're going.
Just because they hot-shotted an angle doesn't mean they don't know where they're going. You can hot-shot an angle and have your follow-through all planned out because you've made a new plan. Hot-shotting doesn't mean you don't have a plan. It just means you're changing up and doing big matches sooner than you otherwise would have because you're worried about the rating or the house instead of waiting for the big payoff on PPV.
And they've been teasing Cole and Lee for a while.
it's not the hot-shotting that exposes it, it's like the whole preceding decisions and follow up that does.
And I'm saying that you don't know that they don't know where they're going, or that they weren't planning on doing this at some point and decided to do it when they did because they didn't want to lose the proximity to the BLM protests and because it was the best way to f*ck with AEW.
On a totally unrelated note, do we know why Fyter Fest and Fight for the Fallen weren't done as PPVs or even as lesser iPPVs this year? Was it always the plant to do it that way, or was this just a COVID adjustment to try to pop a rating. When they first announced Fyter Fest it seemed like they were saying it would be one night.