Kofi did not have a good run with the title.
The match where he won the title was awesome but everything after that was underwelming
The match where he won the title was awesome but everything after that was underwelming
Unpopular Wrestling Opinions
- Thread starter c9777666
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
I don't think that's very unpopular. It was one of the weakest title reigns of all time.
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 195,211
- 44,907
He did the best they were going to let him do with it. Look at who he feuded with and what WWE thinks of them. He had Dolph Ziggler and Samoa Joe, both of whom are respected but audiences were conditioned to see them as lower mid-carders, and the money feud he actually got was with Orton and they couldn’t bring themselves to make Kofi look good in going over because the reality was that Lesnar was getting the title in a squash which they weren’t going to ever do with Orton. At least Kofi is a guy, like Big E is now and Ziggler was, where when they need to do a match to (try to) get someone over, he’s a ‘former world champion’ they can beat.
Sheppy
Registered User
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,676
- 15,272
That's very true. Sometimes WWE ignores main event talent plenty of times, but that wasn't the case here. Kofi Kingston is a middle of the card talent that WWE pushed to get that one moment in. I think that that's generally agreed upon, could be wrong.
Sheppy
Registered User
I remember the night after Kofi got squashed by Brock in like 6 seconds to lose the title, he came out with pancakes, skipping and clapping.
Shouldn't you be upset? No? Ok, then.
Shouldn't you be upset? No? Ok, then.
Banks VS Belair did NOT main event Wrestlemania, they can lie and say she did as much as they want but it happened in the middle of the card splitting Wrestlemania up into 2 nights does not change that fact.
The only exception to the last match not being the real main event was Wrestlemania 18 Rock VS Hogan that didn't go on last but that was the real main event
The only exception to the last match not being the real main event was Wrestlemania 18 Rock VS Hogan that didn't go on last but that was the real main event
sabremike
Kemonito superfan
While this is ignored/forgotten for obvious reasons Bret-Shawn was not the real WM XII main event, it was Warrior's return vs HHH. Also the year prior the official main event was Sid-Taker while the true main event was Bret-Austin.
Warrior VS HHH does not fit it went 99 seconds and it didn't build to anything plus HHH hadn't reached that level
Agree with this. I remember I got shit on here a few years ago by a lot of posters when I said that just because it's the last match doesn't mean it's the main event.
But I also think there are many more exceptions than Rock-Hogan.
Now that I have thought about it there are a couple more, HBK VS TAKER at 25
and Bret VS Austin at 13.
So we are up to 3 but that might be where it stops.
sabremike
Kemonito superfan
That's literally meaningless, it was the match just about everyone in the building came to see. People were walking out on Bret-HBK in the middle of the match.
I'm sure they did come to see the warrior but Bret VS shawn was absolutely the main event
There are more. Most Saturday Night Main Event shows. The top billed match usually opened the show.
Royal Rumble 2006 was closed by Angle vs. Henry. Nobody bought that show to watch that.
Taker vs. Edge at Mania 24.
Piper vs. Lawler at KOTR 94
I was talking mostly about Wrestlemania main events but if you wanted to expand it then of course there are more.
Didn't Taker VS VS Taker go on last at summerslam 1994? Bret vs Owen was the real main event
Taker match did go on last but I don't remember what match was more heavily promoted.
The main event is the most heavily promoted match. The match that is supposed to sell the show, no matter what the order is.
I mean, Taker vs Styles in what was clearly a legend's farewell match to close night one in a cinematic match seems like a bigger deal than the less than five minute match in front of no one that everyone knew Brock vs Drew would be. Or the Big Show dark match they termed on WWE TV as the "hidden main event" I believe.
Edit: They specifically marketed WMVIII as a double main event and I would think Flair vs Savage for the WWF title would've been at least as big a deal as a fading popularity Hogan vs Sid Justice.
The world titles do not need to be defended on every PPV nor should they be.
If you look at boxing or MMA their world champions do not defend their title at every PPV, in fact as of now there is no championship fight of any kind on the next UFC PPV that could change but right now there is not.
WWE and Universal title should be defended on
Rumble
Summerslam
Survivor Series
Wrestlemania
You could argue Money In The Bank but you don't need it because you have the Money In The Bank ladder matches
You can use Hell in a Cell to crown #1 contenders for Survivor Series
If you look at boxing or MMA their world champions do not defend their title at every PPV, in fact as of now there is no championship fight of any kind on the next UFC PPV that could change but right now there is not.
WWE and Universal title should be defended on
Rumble
Summerslam
Survivor Series
Wrestlemania
You could argue Money In The Bank but you don't need it because you have the Money In The Bank ladder matches
You can use Hell in a Cell to crown #1 contenders for Survivor Series
offkilter
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2014
- 1,320
- 301
I've been saying this for a while. It's okay for the big champ to appear on every ppv or have a non title match as that can be used to build fueds and storylines, but having to defend every ppv you end up with cheap hot potatoing of the title, a challenger that keeps getting title shots despite losing over and over, or you end up with the jobber of the month club of rushed challengers with no build up.
AEW has to due to the limited # of PPV’s they have but as it applies to WWE I think I agree with your line of thinking. As a matter of fact it’s probably better for them as they’re running out of top talent to feed to Roman and Brock
This one will be controversial in all likelihood but I do believe it.
At some point in 1998 Owen Hart was presented with a storyline where he have an affair with Debra, Owen turned it down, this lead to him becoming the Blue Blazer which lead to his death in 1999.
He should have done the affair storyline with Debra because it would have saved his life.
He would not have become the Blue Blazer, he would not have been put up on the catwalk and therefore would not have fallen.
Doing that storyline would have saved his life and he'd likely still be here today.
I know the response will be that his wife would have seen it but it's not real and she knows that, she has to she married into the Hart family.
At some point in 1998 Owen Hart was presented with a storyline where he have an affair with Debra, Owen turned it down, this lead to him becoming the Blue Blazer which lead to his death in 1999.
He should have done the affair storyline with Debra because it would have saved his life.
He would not have become the Blue Blazer, he would not have been put up on the catwalk and therefore would not have fallen.
Doing that storyline would have saved his life and he'd likely still be here today.
I know the response will be that his wife would have seen it but it's not real and she knows that, she has to she married into the Hart family.
