There's No Logic In Interfering With Title Matches

[Spidey Revivey]

I can't for the life of me understand why it makes more sense for Wrestler A to cost Wrestler B a championship match, especially if the rivalry has been ongoing. So far, many people believe Brock Lesnar is going to keep Goldberg from beating Owens for the title at Fastlane, even though Golderberg and Lesnar have a date at Wrestlemania. Wouldn't the smart option be for Lesnar to sit this one out, with the idea of beating Golderg for the most coveted prize in wrestling on the grandest stage of them all? No one with any sense would want to screw that opportunity up because "revenge blah blah blah"...

Or am I being too narrow-minded here? Maybe there is something I'm not seeing in this angle. Is the desire for vengeance more important than the desire to be champion? If so, then I don't quite understand why they treat the belt with any prestige. To me, the Universal/World title should be the one thing every superstar wants, whether they're part-timers or not. It shouldn't be completely forgotten about because interfering in your rival's match is just the coolest thing ever.

Not to mention how many times this sort of thing has happened, it is borderline cliche for someone to interfere, especially in a Kevin Owens match.

I'm not saying either one needs the title. In fact, this isn't really even about Brock Lesnar and Goldberg, but how superstars in general lose sight of being THE champion, because of pettiness.

Am I wrong? Is there really more to it than I realize? Or is this tactic just illogical and maybe I shouldn't think about it too much?

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Lesnar has not cared about the title for a long time. He could get a title shot anytime he wants. He entered the Rumble because Goldberg was entered. He asked to face Goldberg at Mania. He just doesn't care about the title. He may care again if Goldberg has it but his main focus is getting his win over Goldberg in order to take away the 'but'.

I'm not saying it is right or wrong but the story and the motivations make sense. It is reasonable for Lesnar to interfere at Fast lane. I don't expect it, because I don't see Vince paying Lesnar to "surprise" people on a Sunday night but if it happens I can buy it.

It makes less sense for a face like Reigns to interfere and ruin the Stroman/Owens match that I was thoroughly enjoying. That was a total dick move.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

It makes less sense for a face like Reigns to interfere and ruin the Stroman/Owens match that I was thoroughly enjoying. That was a total dick move.

That one actually makes sense. Strowman cost him championship opportunity so he cost him the same.

And yeah, Lesnar interfering doesnt really makes sense. It would make sense if Goldberg was a dick and said something along the lines of "I beaten him every time we step into the ring, now I want that title". Then Lesnar could interfere and start the match at Mania. Like this all he has is to seat through and wait for his match to be Championship match if Goldberg wins. Though I am sure Paul Heyman would think of a reason.

Am I wrong? Is there really more to it than I realize? Or is this tactic just illogical and maybe I shouldn't think about it too much?

It mostly doesnt. Why make no DQ match beetween Ko and Reigns if you dont want anyone to interfere in a first place?

Mostly about protecting and making some feud going. Makes KO seem not that strong but in the process not that weak because at the end of the day he is still champion and makes Reigns losing but it took champion and beast to stop him. That is WWE logic in that.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Generally speaking, there are big laps in logic in pro wrestling period. I mean, it's a fictional setting featuring fictional personas engaging in fictional feuds that culminate in fake fights. It's generally meant to be pure escapism and little else, though use of some degree of logic is necessary to keep some continuity going.

To me, interfering in title matches works on a lot of levels. Strowman interfered at the Royal Rumble and his reason was because Reigns embarrassed him. The most instinctive feeling human beings have is "if someone does something to hurt me, I'm gonna do something to hurt them back." In Strowman's case, he saw an opportunity to deprive Roman Reigns of something he very much wanted: the WWE Universal Championship and all the perks that go along with being a champion. In return, Reigns turns around the next night and does the same thing. Of course, as Kodo pointed out, this is also a tactic designed to keep a program going while simultaneously giving them something to fight over. In this particular case, the fight is over someone deliberately involving themselves in someone else's business and costing them the great financial and sense of self worth benefits that come from being champion. In an actual fight, you don't have to have any of that, you don't even have to even have two people who even really dislike each other; all you need is for two people to sign their names on a contract to fight each other for certain amounts of money and whether or not a championship is to be held in contest. Since pro wrestling isn't about real fighting, you have to have a story behind it, you have to have exaggeratedly egotistical reasons for getting into a fight with someone. Interfering in title matches can keep a challenger looking strong while simultaneously wanting to keep the title on the current champion for the time being.

If you think about pro wrestling too much, the logic flaws are blatantly obvious and that's all part of the suspension of disbelief. If it becomes more about a wrestling company doing what you feel that they should do rather than trying to enjoy what you're seeing, then you're usually just wasting your time watching.

 

[OYDK]

Sometimes, sure, but it also depends on the circumstances. In the case of Brock Lesnar, his whole thing is being above the business and thus, the title. He doesn't give a shit because he views himself as an attraction who's going to make a whole bunch of money while he's the champion or not. That might be the reality, but it's also part of his gimmick. Even when he won the title, it was more about destroying Cena than actually being the champ, that was just a perk. I know I said differently in another thread, but thinking it through a bit more, it fits Lesnar's gimmick well enough.

The only time I find interferences in title matches to be illogical is when somebody has a guaranteed match with the challenger and still screws them (except for the guy I just mentioned and very few others). I assume that's your point? If so, I agree with you. For instance, Strowman screwed Reigns out of the title, but it's not like he was feuding with Reigns beforehand. If he had been, than I'd agree that he's a moron. I guess you can view it in the sense that he could have attacked him after the match and set himself up for a title bout but wrestling rarely works like that.

 

[ヒュー　G.　レックション]

I see it simply as you not wanting the person you're feuding with to win the title. I don't know the specifics but In guessing Strowman would be okaybwith beating Reigns then getting a title shot against whoever, instead of allowing Reigns to win and then getting it from him.

 

[ISkye]

I really wouldn't say you're being hypercritical. Even in a fictional setting people can analyze and question things. In this case I feel like it's overused and it can seem worse as time moves on and becomes more and more visible. I would say part of it might be the amount of programming they have to put out, and the capability of an interference to carry sometimes even an entire feud. I think if done right it can captivate an audience, or make a story line much more special. At the same time someone is typically getting cheated out of something. This can be a huge plus, but a huge negative at the same time. With that being said I don't think it's fair to expect them to get it right every time.

Ambrose got a contract to get Seth Rollins at Hell In a Cell, and even though he lost Cena got a No.1 Contenders match against Orton. Ambrose wanted Rollins to the point where it wasn't even on his mind. He's unhinged, a lunatic, or whatever. I don't think he'd choose that opportunity over Rollins to any extent. So Lesnar being a "beast" and all I think it's okay in his case to not care to any extent in this hypothetical. I think the wrestler and the program are pretty important to look at in the general question.

Lesnar has always come right back saying he wants in the title picture after he cleans up a feud as well. I think it just gets put on the back burner. Heyman often talks of his legacy, and the chapter in the book where Goldberg has his number is a low point. He's probably already irrational in thinking from that thought alone and doesn't care about a championship that doesn't define him. Goldberg also hurt his value in that quick defeat. The money Lesnar supposedly comes around for is in question and his Legacy. He hasn't been pushed around in a very, very long time besides by The Undertaker occasionally. He was embarrassed when he jumped into the water, and didn't expect to fall into the deep end. Goldberg losing to Kevin Owens with a title shot on the line sounds like a good way to embarrass a seemingly invincible guy.

Honestly all The Shield members seem to function like they did as a unit individually. I don't really see them as a Face or Heel considering they all seem self motivated in almost any feud they're in. Even when Rollins was in the authority he turned to join people he previously beat just to get ahead of his "brothers". Braun took advantage of what Kevin said to get his title shot, and I think it was a decent way to go off of. Roman just came off a title match loss, and a Rumble loss at #30. Getting a revenge shot, and reminding people he's still there seems to be an appropriate way to send a message.

I see this in WWE, a lot more than anywhere else. They also have much more programming and guys they need to protect than anywhere else. In Pro-Wrestling actions often speak louder in word and physicality is how many convey their messages. It's a simple thing that can usually be done to progress or begin a chapter in a feud. In the case of Rollins vs HHH, I do think it's a poor way to go about things. For such a long time coming and an inevitable outcome it becomes increasingly weakened when it was hardly a strong base to begin with. Rollins goes after Owens and fails every chance he get's. Harasses his boss about her husband and he never shows up. Then that eventually devolves into him cutting a recycled promo and being thrown into a filler match or feud that continues his endless limbo. The closest we get after months is Triple HHH's music playing and Sami getting a sneak pin. You can fill in gaps of logic, but as time has dragged on it's become increasingly unbearable.

It may be an easy way of going about things, but it certainly is better with explanation or thought placed behind it. They seem to be doing it a substantial amount even in other title scenes. I don't mind it overall, because it often makes enough sense in the context of the situation or is a safe way of moving something along. I think they assume the feud will eventually over lapse the interference or whatever and that's one of the parts where you turn brain off. An issue with the general questioning I'd have is where they do it. A RAW main event versus a PPV Main event is a bit different. Fastlane is one where I care more about the aftermath than the event due to what it leads to and I think it makes sense in the current context of everything. In the case of Wyatt at Hell in a Cell, and Undertaker at Battleground it kind of pushes it. It didn't benefit Wyatt, Rollins, or Ambrose. Undertaker kind of just popped in this filler match on a B grade PPV and wanted revenge over a year later for Wrestlemania 30. In something like a Sting debut I think it's okay to throw care away, but I think interference or disqualification has been used to an almost damaging point at this point in time.

 

[Navi]

The interference in matches in general has become staggering. Last night on the LD thread before the Cean/Orton match I called Harper coming in and costing Orton the match. Sure enough Harper interfered and Cena won. Now I realize that it's an ongoing story arc with Harper and the Wyatt's in general, but does this mean now every match Orton or Harper has the other will interfere.

Owens is another example. Has he ever won or lost a match without Jericho doing something to screw it up somehow. They even had to suspend him in a shark cage above the ring to keep him out of it and he still managed to get involved. Same with Rollins when he was champ. He had J&J Security and Kane helping him out all the time. It was almost like the 4 of them were holding the title at the same time. Now we are seeing the same thing with Reigns.

It's pretty sad when you are expecting a run in in almost important match. It gets to the point, why even bother. It's almost like they have to keep reminding us that "Hey don't forget that so and so is involved here as well."

I've no doubt Lesnar will do something in the Owens match, does anyone want to see with Goldberg or Lesnar as champ going into Mania? I don't, bad enough Mania is filled with part timers, please don't let them be feuding over the titles as well. But yea the interference factor has be ratcheted up a lot over the last few years, I don't see it stopping anytime soon.