KOTR or MITB

[justinsayne]

Well it seems as though MITB has basically replaced KOTR as the thing WWE uses to launch their top mid-carders into the ME level, my question is which would you rather have the KOTR tournament or the MITB match?

Personally I would rather have the KOTR, it produced more great matches and I was found more entertaining than any of the MITB matches, it also allows wrestlers with different styles to match up with each other, where with MITB really only the the high flyers and spot monkeys look good in the match

I would love for them to drop MITB and bring back the KOTR, it seems as they are happy with having 8 guys in the MITB match, so I don't see why they couldn't just put those same 8 guys in the KOTR tournament instead, hell just look at this years MITB, you could have a hell of a tournament with those guys, just imagine that great matches all those guys could produce

[Mighty NorCal]

I very much prefer KOTR. For a number of reasons really.

KOTR is much more prestigous, in that it takes much more being overcame that MITB. The winner of MITB kinda almost seems (in kayfabe at least) to be sorta random. KOTR is won in a series of one on one matches. The other reason its more prestigous, is that KOTR gets its own PPV, that is based around it, while MITB is just another undercard match (this holds true for all the KOTR besides two years agos bastard version of it) I think MITB should stay, but KOTR should definately be brought back. And MITB should be brought down to 6 guys at the absolute most.

[TheOneBigWill]

Aw Justin, how can you put me on the spot with asking this question?! Damn you man. I love both the King of the Ring tournament, as well as the Money In The Bank match. So here goes.. breakin' it down.

Money In The Bank: First, the match roughly holds about half of what a KOTR tourney would. (8 for bank, 16 for KOTR) And instead of taking roughly a month to complete, it takes about 20 minutes. So the suspense isn't nearly as dramatic in trying to figure out who'll advance. However the match itself can leave you on the edge of your seat, depending on how it goes.

To fill 8 men into a Ladder match is brutal, however. And honestly I think 7 or 8 is overkill at this point. Its been pointed out several times that you can truly only have about 3-4 guys going at it on camera in the ring at one time, which means the other half of the wrestlers are going to be doing nothing outside.

Whats worse, this year you have an odd number. What guy is gonna draw THAT straw and wonder around aimlessly outside the ring, trying to make it look like hes included in something? Now thats more or less the downside of MITB.

The upside is, you can cash it in anytime you want, which adds intrigue to everything. And ladder matches are always great to watch when you have the right type of talent working them. So the Money In The Bank match is a keeper to definately have. However, the question is.. is it bigger and better than a mere tournament?

King Of The Ring: Most people get bored very quickly with how most tournaments go. And I agree that I dispise waiting out a month, to figure out who ends up in the finals and wins the whole thing. That is the downside to one part of the King of the Ring tournament.

It wasn't always like that, however. They used to do the whole thing in one night. 1993-1995 they did the WHOLE thing in one night. Those were the days.

As said above me, the KOTR tournament can bring you several great one on one match-ups that you definately can't pick a winner out of. And it can bring you some great finals as well. One of the best KOTR tournaments (to me) just happened to be the 1999 version, when Billy Gunn went through Ken Shamrock, Kane & X-Pac in the finals to win it all. Now THAT was a great tournament. It brought you Roaddog v. X-Pac, Kane v. Big Show, X-Pac v. Bob Holly. All those matches were good to me. (might be shit to others, but they were good to me)

My point is, if done in a single night it can prove to be far greater, and better. Hell, it was the basis of an entire Pay Per View that was one of the top 5 of the year for a long time. That alone makes it great.

Overall: Money In The Bank is a Wrestlemania main-stay, it shouldn't go anywhere and it needs to remain on the biggest stage of them all. However, if the King of the Ring tournament is all done in one night, with a total of 7 matches, one guy winning 3 times in total to win it all. Then the King of the Ring has my vote. If its a shit lead-up, with each round being each week, then its just another lame ass tournament.

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

Both.

If utilized correctly, you could successfully have both and not run into any problems. That would be 3 times in a year that you could have someone contend for a title outside of a typical feud. In a way, have it like this:

Royal Rumble - The winner is picked as the guy you want to challenge either the WWE champion or the World Heavyweight champion and win the title. Since you don't know for sure who will be the challenger for the other champ, at No Way Out, you have the Elimination Chamber to decide that.

Money in the Bank - Use this for someone that you think could either make a huge impact in one shot, or someone who is going to be propelled into the main event with said "one shot". Edge wasn't quite in the main event yet, but they gave him the case, then when he was ready, he cashed it in and they had him as the champ.

King of the Ring - Have it around the summer, with the winner being someone that you want to be boosted into the main event, but needs that extra push. For instance, take John Morrison. If he was to challenge the Undertaker for the WHC right now, it wouldn't seem like he would have as much of a chance as someone like Edge, Batista, Orton, etc. However, if he won the King of the Ring, he solidifies himself as "the next main event star". Use this as the stepping stone. The winner gets one shot at the championship of his choice, possibly at Summerslam. As far as the tournament structure goes, I say you should have qualifiers on the weeks coming up to the ppv, limiting it to a select 8 or so guys that you have in the actual tournament during the ppv.

[MrScott]

make money in the bank an any time title shot
royale rumble has to be a wrestlemania title shot
no way out for the elimination chamber other title shot at wrestlemania


then you should make King of the Ring perhaps a June PPV all by itself, done all in one night, screw this long drawn out process of it, of say a random match on smack down, one week, perhaps another on raw the following week. none of that makes it very intresting, and everyone forgets about all the early matches anyway

make it the whole one one night thing, would make for a good show of endurance, and would make the winner look quite powerfull and a legit contender

then the winner, as nofate says then have the winner challenge at Summer Slam. would be a good way to bring up new main eventers. instead of the same guys every single month =-/

[Uncle Bagwell]

KOTR made career's 4 certain wrestlers..any1 remember mabel gettin a huge push after he won it in 94 or 95 ? same goes for HHH and stone cold and kurt angle ! this ppv paved the way 4 their on going sucess as it gave each wrestler a huge leap from becomming an average mid -carder to headlining main events world wide ! bring back KOTR ! i remember the rock beat boss man in lyk 6 or 8 seconds in the 98 tournament !

[klunderbunker]

Either one works fine for me. I voted for MITB as it has a definitive prize for winning. If I remember correctly, aside from Brock's victory, tehre was nothing guaranteed for winning, aside from prestiege. MITB has been a launching pad for each winner so far, while KOTR has pretty much been hit and miss. I love the tournament, but MITB just edges it out.

[I_Like_All_Wrestling]

I happen to prefer KOTR (with multiple matches in one night) because I like how the winner has had to run through a bunch of people to win. But I suppose in MITB no one "looks weak" because no one gets pinned or submits so that may have something to do with it.

[Esteban Ochocinco]

Money in the Bank is shit. It does nothing but ruin a once great pay per view by taking 6-8 of the best young, mid card guys on the roster, and instead of using them in 3-4 matches throughout the night, they lump them into a 20 minute spot fest, and you don't see them the rest of the night. It's a way to keep the spotlight off of the young guys, and a way for the guys up top to not worry that the first card of the night stole the show for the rest of the night, complete crap.

personally I love tournaments (wow shock), and think the King of the Ring is a great Idea. However, I hate the dumbed down, 3 matches version. The King of the Ring tournament with 8 wrestlers should be done in one night, not only the semi-finals and finals. You could build a whole pay per view around King of the Ring, you can't do that with Money in the Bank.

[Slyfox696]

King of the Ring was always boring, and who really wants to see a long-ass tournament of midcarders?

MITB is much more interesting as it only happens one time, for less than 20 minutes, and generally comprises of really good highlight reel moves, and depending on who is in the match, and actual good match.