Non-Title Main Events

[jason305]

Hey IWC. This one is pretty simple. I just want to know do you guys think the WWE should have more high-profile non-title matches as main events on a PPV.

A match with no title's involved. Where a fued is purely about respect or about something personal.Like for example Taker vs Shawn WM26

I for one love these matches and I usually care more for a match thats personal over a match that involves the championship.And I would like to see this more but not at every PPV. Let's say every 2-3 months maybe. The build up to a match like this should be slow. They should start it in month 1 and not let them meet at the 1st PPV. Month two the heel could involve the face's family/gf whatever and at that PPV they could meet but the heel can sneak out of it by getting a lackie to replace him or something. and then finally at the next big PPV (insert Summerslam) you have them officially meet in the main event. No title just hatred/respect depending how they book it.

It doesn't have to be the blow off match they could have one more match after that but you get what I'm saying.

Anyway ultimately I just want to know do you think this should be done more often. If you want to add your idea feel free to do so.

 

[Sully]

It really depends on the situation. If it's a very good rivalry, and has a lot of fan support going into it, then it'll be a good match, as the fans won't complain, and will be very into it. There should also be a special stipulation, as it will probably be boring without it.

 

[I Suck Ass]

In case you didn't notice, there are 3 non-title feuds going on now in the WWE.

Edge vs. Orton has just started, but it will go on for a while. Punk vs. Mysterio has been going for lord knows how long. And Shad and JTG have been going at it for a while (STUPID IDEA!!!!!).

I like the idea of the non-title rivalry. They are usually more in-depth and have deeper storylines, such as the Mysterio vs. Eddie Guerrero over the custody of Mysterio's adopted son or the Hogan vs. Piper or Piper vs. Flair matches that involved Miss Elizabeth.

Non-title matches work only if the storyline works. That's what I think.

 

[Kiefer-Zeus]

This situation has been used sometimes in the past most notably if the feud has lasted longer then half of the year!

Prime examples are!

Bad Blood 2004 - Hell in a Cell Triple H vs. Shawn Michaels

Armageddon 2005 - Hell in a Cell Randy Orton vs. Undertaker

 

[Cookie14]

There are usually a few of these matches on every PPV card. Think about it, there are 6 titles (WH, WWE, US, IC, Divas, Tag, Womens titles) but there are usually 8 matches on a PPV card.

If every title is defended, which they normally are not, then you still have room for at least 2 non-title matches on every PPV card. These are not randomly thrown together matches, they have a strong fued involved.

I prefer non-title matches at PPV's because they always seem to be more personal than the usual "I want your title", but they do have to have a proper storyline build up to them

 

[darbare]

usually they do personal rivalries during title matches.....cena vs batista was personal.....edge vs jericho was personal.....i think it depends on the storyline mainly....if a title isnt the main reason at the beginning of the feud i will most likely be hooked if i like the people involved....key example shad vs jtg, i couldnt care less....

 

[Slim Pickns]

I'm all for non title PPV Main Events if the feud can be built up to make it a legit main event. Back in the day (for me anyway) matches like Mega Powers (Hogan and Savage) vs Mega Bucks (Andre the Giant and Million Dollar Man) were more than worthy of headlining SummerSlam. I know that Savage was the WWF Champion at the time but the belt was not on the line. The Macho Man-Million Dollar Man feud was combined with the largely popular Hogan-Andre feud and made for an awesome main event that could still draw huge numbers with zero chance of a title change.

The reason people are hesitant to this in today's world is every main event feud is "this guy is the champ, this guy wants the title." After that they put minimal effort into other feuds. If the writers out effort into building an entire product, the WWE has the talent to make for some amazing non title rivalries. Rivalries like Jericho-Mysterio or Punk-Mysterio have proven fans can get emotionally invested in non world title feuds. Every time I hear someone complain about "this guy should be fighting for the title" I think about how the solution is to give him an interesting feud. Again, back in the day, no one really complained about the ultra popular Jake Roberts not fighting for the WWF Title because he was always in a feud with an awesome story. Today, if you are not in the title picture, you are just floating around. If popular stars like Christian or MVP had more to do in the midcard, there would be far less outcry for them to be in the main event. There can only be a handful of guys in the title picture so these types of feuds are needed. If they are utilized then they have main event potential even without the title.

An interesting argument I heard was to do PPV like the UFC does where not everyone fights on every card. Obviously Brock Lesnar vs Shane Carwin wouldn't draw huge on July 3rd if it was the third month in a row they fought. So Cena fighting Batista at Extreme Rules would mean Cena not on the next two PPV to save his drawing power. I'm not sure how I feel about this and would love to hear what you guys think about it.

 

[BourneToFly]

It really depends on the situation. If it's a very good rivalry, and has a lot of fan support going into it, then it'll be a good match, as the fans won't complain, and will be very into it. There should also be a special stipulation, as it will probably be boring without it.

I agree. A title obviously puts a little more at stake in a match but that doesn't always have to be the case. We have plenty of matches like this. They make good matches, but without something like a championship, they take months to build up. They do exist though. For instance, Taker and Shawn, like you said. Another is from probably 2 years back shortly after Jericho came back. He and Shawn had a killer rivalry.

I do like seeing the matches, as they're usually the ones that creative puts a lot of though into because a title can't fuel it. I was hoping Y2J and Edge would turn into this as opposed to Edge going to Raw, but now I think Orton and Edge have a chance to build a rivalry. I just hope they actually keep it going after Over the Limit.

 

[Jeff]

If it has a lot of build to it then sure why not. However it has to have a strong build up. Also at the same time the Title match has to be weak. There can't be a big name (or at least a big feud) going for either the World or WWE Title. Also another prime example of a Main Event without a Title involved could be a big return or a big retirement match. For example if The Rock over the summer is willing to wrestle one match against John Cena. Clearly it wouldn't be a title match just because The Rock isn't a wrestler anymore but if something like that were to happen it clearly would be Main Event material.

 

[Judah's Lion]

there have been plenty of great main events without any title involved, world or otherwise. some earlier posts mentioned past rivalries that weren't for the world title, but did involve the ic title or the tag titles, etc. but there are many story lines with no titles or careers on the line.

think of any McMahon match. his fight against Flair at the Royal Rumble, the fight against Triple H at Armageddon, buried alive against Undertaker, his fight against HBK, Shane, Hogan and now Bret Hart at Mania... all of these were without titles or careers on the line. and of course McMahon vs. Austin was epic.

Eddie Guerrero and Rey is another great example. HBK and Jericho (both times) was fantastic story telling. Triple H and Sheamus has been good and not for any title. Edge and Jericho at Extreme Rules was not for any title and now Edge and Orton is going well. the original HBK and Taker at Mania 25 was one of the best matches ever and had nothing on the line other than respect and "the streak".

as long as the story is done properly, there are several stars on both Raw and Smackdown that could main event any pay per view, Summer Slam, Royal Rumble and Mania all included, that would not need to revolve around any title. titles obviously can add to the story: i want respect or revenge, and your title as a bonus, just like blood can add to the story telling of a match -- if done correctly. but neither are necessary. there are too-many-to-count great matches that were incredibly done that did not involve titles or blood. they were just great stories.

so, to answer the question, if it came down to seeing pay per view after pay per view of the same title challenges or seeing non-title main events that had in depth build ups and great story telling, guess i'd take the non-title feuds every time. i prefer a good story more than anything else a show can offer.

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

Yes, if the feud is high-profile, maybe with a stip and a long feud coming to an end..

wwe have done this in the past quite a lot, they have to becareful when booking what the main event should be, e.g. wm25, a lot of the critics and wrestling fans said this should have main-evented, they ended up doing main eventing it this year...

i think we only get to see a maximum of 1 non-title main events a year...if says its a retirement match, a big feud coming to an end...or maybe just a hell in acell match, like the "E" have done in the past..

 

[jmyers19]

A match I think had the right build-up which was a non-title match main event was HBK vs. Hogan since it was the first and only time they've faced one another. If it has the right stipulation, like this years WM did and the right vibe then I think its a great idea. I mean it doesn't always have to hold a stipulation like HBK/UT but if its a first between two legends or a rare match and so on then great. Undertaker and Triple H's final matches will obviously be on a huge stage and they'll get the main event spot.

 

[The_Lion1990]

It depends with the wrestlers involved.. Taker/HBK was a fantastic fued and you could see the passion involved as Taker was unbeaten and refused HBK another chance so HBK was relentless not caring about DX or titles, whereas fueds like HHH and Sheamus just seem completely bland with no real point to it other than trying to showcase Sheamus..

The Rock and Austin at 19 was also more than titles it was about how The Rock had never beaten Austin at Mania, as well as Hogan and The Rock where it was about old vs new, so I feel unless the story is there it should happen more, as the titles are a joke now-a-days anyway

 

[greg_74]

I personally like it were the WWE or World Heavyweight is the last match, but there are some cases where I think its better for the PPV to have a non-title match at the end. WM 26 was a great example. You'll notice they are usually at the "lesser" PPV's, which is fine because it is different and allows for that match to mean even more than if it were the 4th match on the card. If Orton and Edge feud throught the year (singles match at Over the Limit, title match in a couple months, etc.) I could see them having a singles match that could headline a PPV without the belt on the line. Hell thats Raw's top feud and the best thing it has going for it right now, not Batista vs. Cena...