Contractual rematches for titles

[TheICChampion]

I've been thinking, and although we've seen it enough times with MitB cash-ins occurring so often after the champion has already had a match, what would you think about guys who've lost titles "cashing in" their rematch for the title they've lost after the superstar who took it from them has just been through a match? I realize that, as I said, this sort of thing has been done to death already by MitB cash-ins, but I would like to see what would happen especially if it were a tactic primarily used by heels in order to get heat. Think about it. If, let's say, Dolph Ziggler were still IC champion when Barrett gets back. He's already going to say he has never really lost the title, and therefore, is entitled to a shot at the belt he never lost. But, he's afraid he's GOT SOME BAAAADD NEEEEWWWWSSSSS!!! He's not going to tell Ziggler when he plans on getting the title back. Let it go for a little while, and after a hard fought match in which Ziggler is able to win, we see Barrett come out, and once again he is there to deliver some bad news to Dolph. He says he is here to cash in his shot at the IC championship. Bell rings, *BOOM* Bullhammer elbow, and 1-2-3 new champion. Think of how much heat that could draw.


Anyway, again this is just me. I would be interested to see if this could work. What do you guys think?

 

[Hard Hit Prince]

No. This completely ruins the Money In The Bank concept, it ruins the purpose of a match and it's probably gonna ruin the credibility of both champion and championship. It draws a lot of heat, but more so to the decision then to the actual heel. There's a lot and I really mean a lot of ways to make someone a credible heel without this concept. So, sorry dude, it should not be done.

Imagine that a heel gets a roll-up victory, a fluke, the babyface response was to automatically cash in on his rematch clause and if he lost TWICE as flukes it would make the babyface look like a fool. I don't see any good being taken away from this.

 

[Navi]

I'm not so sure I want too see this happen. There is a reason we have MITB contract, it's special and the person holding it is treated as special. The WWE champ has to watch over his shoulder for him at all times. If the WWE goes down the route you're suggesting it would negate the prestige that the MITB holds.

In the case of Barrett, he was injured unfortunately and the title had to be taken from him, Bryan as well. When they both come back, by all means they should get an automatic title match and not have to wait in line. It doesn't mean they should win it though. When someone loses a title by being stripped because of injury, they already get special treatment, buy not having to wait. It's a slippery slope when you start putting stipulations in like that, because maybe Barrett will come back and want a shot at the WWE title instead.

Wrestling is what I call a static sport, and things can change in an instant. You have to keep your options open and fair to everyone.

 

[rbv13]

The idea of MitB is that a title match can happen at any given moment. The rematch clause needs a new contract set with a new official date and time. Might be interesting to see a rematch anytime anywhere clause built into a none MitB deal but if it was a regular thing it devalues the case.

 

[Officer Trapdoor]

I think allowing rematches take place at any time the same as MITB would also devalue championships in general.

Anyone can win a title after their opponent has already been through a grueling war. If this sort of thing were common place champions in general run the risk of being ilegitamized.

 

[Wrestlingaholic]

I'm sure WWE trialled this a couple of years back - Nexus rings a bell - where a team lost and regained the tag titles on Raw in consecutive matches.

I may be wrong but it rings a bell.

Personally I think something like that could work on rare occasions, but the example given by the OP wouldn't work, and would negate the need for Money in the Bank in many ways.

There was also the hardcore title with its 24/7 rule - that title was treated as a pure comedy title (despite the name) in that era

 

[Mustang Sally]

I think allowing rematches take place at any time the same as MITB would also devalue championships in general.

Yes, that's what it does. It's true that pro wrestling features ways to steal a title in less than honorable means, but as the previous posters are saying, MITB already provides that.....and honestly, I'm tired of the concept. It's been a way for heels to grab the gold by less than fair means (a title match should involve two people who have yet to wrestle that evening).....the MITB concept also implies it's the only way the guy can win the belt.

It's hard enough watching this over and over with MITB; I can't see creating additional means to do it. Even if the challenger is a cowardly bad guy, he should have to win the belt in a fair contest, meaning that even if he ultimately cheats to get it done, let him do it against a champion who hasn't totally exhausted himself in a match immediately prior.

 

[bioshock]

MITB already means nothing this year, and last year was a bigger joke. So who really cares, if it makes tv more interesting for WWE then do it. Cause they need all the help they can get.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

Think of how much heat that could draw.

Would also do what others have said and that is devalue of championship. Would also devalue MiTB because MiTB is there for that moment only and that is to cash in on opponent for the title when you want.

Besides it would be same thing as today with some other rules like "Championship must be defended within 30 days or you are being stripped". It would be selective and WWE would enforce it as they want. And think Barret would probably get to feud with Ziggler anyway when he gets back so championship or not, you still get the feud.

 

[kadroan]

No. This completely ruins the Money In The Bank concept, it ruins the purpose of a match and it's probably gonna ruin the credibility of both champion and championship. It draws a lot of heat, but more so to the decision then to the actual heel. There's a lot and I really mean a lot of ways to make someone a credible heel without this concept. So, sorry dude, it should not be done.

Imagine that a heel gets a roll-up victory, a fluke, the babyface response was to automatically cash in on his rematch clause and if he lost TWICE as flukes it would make the babyface look like a fool. I don't see any good being taken away from this.

Yeah true. I don't mind seeing it happen once since WWE likes act like rules don't apply to certain wrestlers. Ex: Not stripping Brock of the title despite not defending the title for 30+ days.

 

[FromGlasgow]

I can't see it happening would it mean if a title changes hands and the last champion still hadn't cashed in his rematch a new champion could potentially have more than one rematch and challenger in any one night it would be too confusing especially if the concept was used for all the titles and the big matches wouldn't feel special if you know the champions are going to get a guaranteed rematch if the title changes hands anyway.