- Boards
- Pro Wrestling: WWE
- Cases when belts weren't defended within 30 days.
|
Companies usually use this as an excuse to vacate a belt, but there are numerous cases where this didn't apply. Brock Lesnar won his title on April 2nd and it been slightly over two months.
What other cases can you think of? These are ones that came to my mind: Hogan has multiple cases during the NWO run. He defended WCW title to Flair on August 15, 1996 and didn't defend it again until October 27 that year. After that, not until January 25, 1997. A month later in February 23, he didn't defend again until August 3. When he won it again on August 9, he didn't defend until November 24. NWO's Outsiders also went quite a few months with the Tag Titles in 1997. February - June I believe. Triple H won the 2016 Rumble which had Roman Reigns's title on the line on January 24. He didn't defend until March 12.
Woman of the week: Dawn Marie
https://pics.wikifeet.com/Dawn-Marie-Psaltis-Feet-93021.jpg |
|
DeathX2270 posted...
Dean Ambrose's US Title run when he was in the Shield This
I Pranked this dude with prankdial https://youtu.be/O7O1BXzGU-s
|
|
The rule isn't you have to defend it every 30 days, it's that you have to vacate it if you're unable to defend it within 30 days. It's really not hard to grasp.
if Brock was booked he'd be able to defend it so he doesn't need to vacate it. |
|
ad_Talking_He posted...
The rule isn't you have to defend it every 30 days, it's that you have to vacate it if you're unable to defend it within 30 days. It's really not hard to grasp. People religiously fail to grasp this
"Do you know any Pearl Jam?"
https://imgur.com/gallery/o9Lgq |
|
ChaseXtreme posted...
Triple H won the 2016 Rumble which had Roman Reigns's title on the line on January 24. He didn't defend until March 12. I was ringside for that March 12 defense and it was the best match I've ever seen live. Roadblock (not end of the line) was amazing
Jerry, it's Frank Costanza!!! Mr Steinbrenner's here George is dead - call me back!!!!
|
|
Trish holding onto the Women's Championship while she was injured for about half of 2005.
|
|
J03can posted...
ChaseXtreme posted...Triple H won the 2016 Rumble which had Roman Reigns's title on the line on January 24. He didn't defend until March 12. Yeah that match was really good and easily the best Triple H match since... Bryan? And his other matches since haven't come close either. It's odd really because Triple H doesn't have a good track record with wrestlers on his level or below, he can only truly have great matches with people better than him, but yeah Ambrose and him just clicked. |
|
ad_Talking_He posted...
The rule isn't you have to defend it every 30 days, it's that you have to vacate it if you're unable to defend it within 30 days. It's really not hard to grasp. Titles have been stripped just for not being defended before. It happened to the WCW tag titles in late 1998.
Woman of the week: Dawn Marie
https://pics.wikifeet.com/Dawn-Marie-Psaltis-Feet-93021.jpg |
|
wow 19 years ago in a different company, a company widely derided for changed its rules so much it couldn't keep track of them. compelling
|
|
ad_Talking_He posted...
wow 19 years ago in a different company, a company widely derided for changed its rules so much it couldn't keep track of them. compelling WWE is no different. The rule is what they need it to be. Trish held the Women's title despite being injured half the year. Steve Austin had to vacate the IC title because he refused to defend it before Wrestlemania.
This is the Internet; you can't use popularity to prove something is good unless it's something I actually like.
|
|
When Bruno Sammartino legitimately broke his neck in the ring. He was back to defend the title 2 months later and that was actually the only time in his 11 years as champion where he didn't defend it for more than 30 days.
Look at arson - I mean, how many of us can honestly say that at one time or another he hasn't set fire to some great public building? I know I have.
|
|
sith_acolyte15 posted...
ad_Talking_He posted...wow 19 years ago in a different company, a company widely derided for changed its rules so much it couldn't keep track of them. compelling "because he refused to defend it" - you realise that undermines your point? Anyway, regardless I agree with you. Like all "rules" in this fake sport they're open to artistic license to get the desired effect. It amuses me when people point out Brock or whoever haven't defended the title for 30 days, like they've got WWE in a legal bind they can't get out of. |
|
ad_Talking_He posted...
sith_acolyte15 posted...ad_Talking_He posted...wow 19 years ago in a different company, a company widely derided for changed its rules so much it couldn't keep track of them. compelling He refused because they didn't want him to lose before his World title match against HBK. They book the rule how and when they need to. Like I said.
This is the Internet; you can't use popularity to prove something is good unless it's something I actually like.
|
|
brock lesnar doesn't even have a title reign until he defends it, I don't know how anyone can say he's had it for two months without even defending, it's a f***ing travesty
|
|
ad_Talking_He posted...
It amuses me when people point out Brock or whoever haven't defended the title for 30 days, like they've got WWE in a legal bind they can't get out of. You are reading way too much into this.
Woman of the week: Dawn Marie
https://pics.wikifeet.com/Dawn-Marie-Psaltis-Feet-93021.jpg |
|
BudDupree48 posted...
brock lesnar doesn't even have a title reign until he defends it, I don't know how anyone can say he's had it for two months without even defending, it's a f***ing travesty He's had it for 2 months without defending it, that is a fact. You can be mad all you want, but like Hogan unless there's worthy challengers he doesn't have to show up.
If you believe in magic and I hope you don't, you always have somebody that will and won't :D.
|
|
if someone held the title for a year without defending it, would you consider it a title reign. You people disgust me defending a wrestler that doesn't give a f*** about you or the business
|
|
mrlowrider posted...
ad_Talking_He posted...The rule isn't you have to defend it every 30 days, it's that you have to vacate it if you're unable to defend it within 30 days. It's really not hard to grasp. hasn't he been doing house shows as well? |
|
lol, pretending like this rule matters
Red Wings-Pistons-Tigers-Spartans
http://i.imgur.com/T5VJ5Mi.gifv http://i.imgur.com/F3Yu7Aw.gifv http://i.imgur.com/7s86tr1.gif http://i.imgur.com/jy39uF4.gif |
|
BudDupree48 posted...
LMAO you think brock does house shows DeathX2270 posted... Dean Ambrose's US Title run when he was in the Shield or even the last IC title run where he was defending it 5 times a week but only 3 times total on TV the rock didn't defend the title for 48 days between elimination chamber and WM 29
[?]
"He must've been a very important chimp." |
|
gl83 posted...
Assuming no one cashes in the Women's MITB briefcase immediately, Naomi will have gone 3 months or so without a title defense. She defended it against charlotte on Smackdown when the welcoming committee was formed. Couldn't have been more than six weeks ago, no?
"Do you know any Pearl Jam?"
https://imgur.com/gallery/o9Lgq |
|
mrlowrider posted...
ad_Talking_He posted...The rule isn't you have to defend it every 30 days, it's that you have to vacate it if you're unable to defend it within 30 days. It's really not hard to grasp. Because it's untrue? Wait, let me rephrase... It may be true now, but it definitely wasn't before, and was explicitly stated as such multiple times. Nfi what the current rule is.
~PSN/Twitch- Lord_Wombat ~*Playing: Tekken 7 (King/Kazuya/Bryan/Steve)*
The beatings will continue until morale improves |
|
Is Brock supposed to book his own defenses? Have you been promised a match that Brock no-showed?
And if you b**** that sometimes champs give people shots, well there you go, it's artistic license and it's whatever they want it to be
"Do you know any Pearl Jam?"
https://imgur.com/gallery/o9Lgq |
|
mrlowrider posted...
gl83 posted...Assuming no one cashes in the Women's MITB briefcase immediately, Naomi will have gone 3 months or so without a title defense. -End of April was when she faced Charlotte -May there was no title match due to the 6-person tag at Backlash -June we have the MITB match So, unless there is a quick cash-in, Naomi would have gone 3 months between title defenses. |
|
Have you emailed WWE and informed them they should strip her?
|
- Boards
- Pro Wrestling: WWE
- Cases when belts weren't defended within 30 days.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Public Comments