Currently studying Journalism at the University of Technology in Sydney, Australia.
As a child, when I wasn't doing typical Australian things like fending off dingoes while riding in the pouches of kangaroos, I was watching wrestling.
Follow me on twitter @dvanboom
Just saw your post on my board so this is a little late, but you're welcome for the edits! Hope they were helpful.
Whats your opinion on Sandow?
Thanks for putting out the Smackdown spoilers every week. I actually look forward to them every wednesday. I always work friday nights so i never get a chance to watch.
Sorry, just saw that you posted on my wall, but that's what editors are for! Really enjoy your work sir.
I didn't watch a lot of that period of WWE at the time, the end of the 2000s before we hit the 2010s is a bit unknown to me in terms of what was important. I've seen a lot of that period's matches/feuds via YouTube, but its hard to get a feel for what was being given the most screen time and what was being treated as the most important thing on a comparative level from that, because WWE's video packages make EVERYTHING seem important.
I've heard what you said before. Considering what a vast amount of time Cena spend holding world titles from 2005 onwards, I find it weird that he wasn't seen as being the top guy in quite the same way as he is now. 2009-2010 did see the return of DX for the final time I guess - who were booked as being more important than ANY championship, which must have contributed in part to Cena being put down a peg.
No problem! Great article by the way. Really enjoyed it.
Your latest piece is excellent. Very impressed.
It was also good that you drew attention to the fact that the WHC was once booked incredibly strongly. Most articles I read on the fact the WHC hasn't been terribly important (side note: also sick of "prestige" being the only word used to rate a championship's value) since 2010, are an excuse to ramble about how "Vince made the title the crap title because it was an NWA/WCW championship and Vince hates anything that isn't his" / "The WWE title is Cena's title Vince wants to prove how good Cena is by only giving the other title mid-card champions". I liked that you were so objective :)
You namechecked and talked about many, many of the men to have held the title. I wanted to ask you though - why did you not mention Cena holding the title in 2009? As WWE's top name, that's surely the last time the title was absolutely, definitely being treated as the top prize in the company. And secondly - what are your thoughts on Batista? From April 2005 to December 2007 he dominated the WHC scene. I'm interested if you feel he was a good, successful champion, as he was consistently popular but it was also under his reign that the difference in importance between the titles first started to show.
"Do you know, do you know who you're gonna fight Rocky. Somehow, someway, you are going to fight ME. And not only will I be the WWE Champion but I'll be the face of the W.W.E!!"
WWE should do the right thing and have Daniel Bryan vs The Rock at the main event of wrestlemania XXX for the WWE title.
Wrestlemania is a night when rookies become mid carders, when mid carders becomes main eventers, when main eventers become legends, when legends become hall of famers, when hall of famers become all time greats.
The Rock and Daniel Bryan share a lot of similarities: both started as boring generic babyface rookies, both got their career saved by a heel turn, both lost two consecutive ppv wwf/e title matches (Austin wm15 and backlash 99 ; Punk over the limit and mitb 12) then went on to form a tag team with an unlikely partner (Mankind ; Kane) and they were the one that shined the most in that team and showed a funnier side which led to them turning face and when that team broke up they went on to win their first world title as babyfaces (vs HHH ; vs Cena).
So much similarities in their career, they had chemistry on the mic and their segment at raw 1000 was entertaining, they will also have chemistry in the ring since Rock worked a lot of great matches in his career with smaller guys (Jericho, Benoit, Angle...) And while Rock might not be the wrestler he once was, he can still tell a great story in the ring and Bryan can get a great match out of him, Bryan can have great matches with bigger guys, his matches were Ryback on smackdown and raw were great and his match with Cena was amazing as well.
While I would like to see Rock vs Brock or Rock vs HHH or even Rock vs Taker, I think the right choice would be to have Rock get his rematch clause against Bryan at Wrestlemania.
It would be nice to have wrestlemania end with Bryan beating The Rock for the wwe championship, imagine the guy who lost the opening match in 18 seconds would go on to beat the guy who won wrestlemania's main event 2 years later, that would be more than epic and it would be nice to have a star born at wrestlemania, the last time wrestlemania ended with a NEW STAR was wrestlemania 21.
Do you think it should happen?
I did a bunch of research a while ago and found the following. The average time a successful Money In the Bank holder (11 of 12) held the belt they won is 82.25 days (2.7 months). I have the excel data to back it up if you would like it.
The reason I did this was to show that historically the WWE doesn't book the character MITB very strong after winning and people keep thinking this is a slight on the performers but it isn't. Perhaps it is merely their way of saying: "This character gets the easy way in and therefore didn't do it in the normal fashion, so it will only last a few months & wont be booked so strongly." It also appears it is a test to see the reaction/draw the new champ will have.