Do you agree with rematch clauses?

[CenaFan]

I don't. I think it should be limited.

For example: If a certain superstar lost the belt, they should get 1 rematch clause and if they lose well tuff, they can't go after the belt for at least a month or 2.

 

[Scotty]

That isn't the point of a rematch clause. Rematch clauses are there because they are the former champion and deserve another shot at winning the championship. They are also in the contract in case the Champion loses his championship because of interference. Would you want to see a champion lose via disqualification by means of interference and just be screwed out of a title rematch? I think not.

 

[The People's Peep]

Scotty got it right. It prevents someone from being screwed out of a title due to interference, DQ, and all other non-clean finishes.

But I also think they are there simply to keep feuds going. One and done feuds are boring. When there is no development in a feud, it almost seems like there is no point in the two stars fighting. With the rematch clause, the rematch has at least some development. Also, it's easier to build some hype for a rematch. There are plenty of benefits of having a rematch clause.

 

[Scotty]

You can't lose the Championship by disqualification, no, but you can lose by shady means. Say John Cena and Sheamus are wrestling for the championship and Sheamus lays out Cena with the lead pipe while the referee is knocked out. You wouldn't want him to have a rematch for losing his championship from his opponent cheating?

 

[1_2_3 Kid]

I thought when it came to championship matches, you can't lose in a Dq?

No, for any title match, the belt does not change hands by way of dq.

Now, as for the thread.. the champ always gets a rematch. That's his right as champion to fight for the gold again. But I do agree that if you lose your shot, that should be it while the man that beat you is champion.

The only problem with that is that there aren't enough good feuds to go around. That's why we get some of the same guys all the time fighting for the title. I mean christ, cena has won and lost the title more times in the past year and a half than I can count. He is always in the title hunt, just like orton, hhh, and edge.

I'm liking the new superstar innitative and we are getting some really great guys (and girls) coming up from triple A to the big leagues. The uso's, all the NXT stars, even sheamus is a great new face that we have around. He needs to keep that title, because if cena wins it back ill flip shit.

 

[fenfool]

If I recall correctly, last year DX intentionally got DQ'd from Jeri-Show's rematch clause to knock Jericho off of Raw and 'burn' the rematch.

I think having a rematch clause makes sense for a champion going into a match, knowing the title could be lost on a fluke; not just for storyline purposes in wrestling either, makes sense for boxing & MMA champs too. It IS a bit odd that they pretty much never bring this up before a championship match...could be a stip that there is no rematch clause to get the champ to agree to a match.

 

[Da Big Champ]

I don't agree with rematch clauses. A good champion would work for their title match instead of using a rematch. The rematch also seams pointless because most times the title doesn't change hands in the rematch.
I would get rid of the rematches because IMO it makes seems stupid to reward a wrestler for losing.

 

[wwefan2010]

ok heres what I think, the former champs always come out the next night on Raw talking about they want to invoke their rematch clause tonight. Well if they get to choose to invoke it, why dont they use at times to invoke it when the former champ would want to like the money in the bank, maybe u want to invoke it after the champ won a tough match and has nothing left.

What I am saying is it would be better if they used it further instead of a just a title shot at the next PPV. Like have the wrestler save it for a ppv down the road, like right now have Cena save it and invoke for a title match at Summerslam.

 

[wushady]

I think it's a great storyline reason to keep the feud going. In addition to giving someone a chance to get revenge when they lose after being screwed by their opponent cheating. It's also a used to make the new champion look stronger by beating the former champion twice in a row.

 

[Dave]

Oh, I definitely do!

Let’s look at some of the evidence over the last few weeks and see if I can convince you that it is indeed a good thing…

John Cena is beaten by Sheamus at the Fatal 4 Way event and the next night on Raw, he cashes in his rematch clause. During the match, the Nexus come out and interrupt the match. Sheamus. being Sheamus, decides to run off into the distance and the match is basically abandoned as the Nexus beat the shit out of John Cena and Mr McMahon. Now, the very next wee, John Cena comes out and isn’t upset that his match was basically ruined. However, thank goodness for the new GM. Whoever it is gives us a rematch that we actually deserve and this time, it is a cage match.

You see, the great thing about a rematch clause is that it forces people to up their games. John Cena will be looking to take the title back and Sheamus will be looking to doggedly defend his new Championship reign. Even the match gimmick has been raised and I think we can all agree that it is for the best. These two guys deserve to have a match that will not be “ruined” by interference and a rematch clause is in place to make sure that a Champion gets a chance to win back his lost Championship without fear of being screwed out of that too.

Personally, I feel that it can become a little stale and boring and when a Champion loses, you basically know what the main event of the next PPV will be. Yes, it can become repetitive but at the end of the day, it is in place to appease the Champion and the fans who want to see their favourite superstar win the Championship back.

 

[Goliath Uterus]

I think the rematch clause is awesome. It proves that the champion is a fighting champion, that he is truly better than the man he beat, and like others have said it ensures that if the champ lost in a less then respactable way, then he can have his rematch and win it back.

It's a great way to end and further fueds as well. If the loser of the match comes out the next night and demands a title match, and then loses, he is out of title shots and off he goes, its a simple, yet effective way of ending fueds. I also enjoy the clause because great matches have spawned as a result of somone invoking the rematch clause, its just good TV.

 

[Kliq]

Do I agree that the creative team came up with a method so that the wrestler formerly written as champion may or may not be scheduled to face the wrestler who was penciled in to defeat them for the championship to be able to possibly win the title again (depending on what direction said creative team decides to go)?

I mean really, this isn't boxing or the UFC. How often does the WWE break its own rules? Those of you who don't like it might not have to worry about it the next time because (for some reason) the former champion seems to forget about their rematch option or are given a scripted excuse as to why they cannot compete. Discussing something like this is like posting a thread in a Fruits forum, "Do you agree that apples have stems?" It is what it is.

 

[Digging4Plunder]

Rematch clauses are a great way for creative to either build up a new contender between the rematches, or further the feud to a satisfying end. Most feuds can muster up 2 to 3 good matches and it makes a Champion look good by coming out on top. They can build it up to be exhausting, the challenger is dangerous, blah blah.

To the building a new contender point, I believe this is the what the rematch clause should be intended for, if it is not already. It may not always be a fresh challenger, but having someone come into the feud for a major championship on a serious roll allows the viewer to figure out if they can suspend their beliefs for a while and think the Champ has a chance at losing.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

No, not even remotely do I agree with Rematch clauses. And here's why..

More often than not, its only the 'Face' Superstar who has them. And on that note, its never just one - its as many as needed, until they finally regain the fucking Championship. Which, in my opinion, defeats the purpose.

I agree that a rematch clause, if one is involved, needs to have the stipulation that its one and done. If you lose because of outside interference, countout, or disqualification - well, thats just tough. Go to the back of the line, and restart the climb to re-become the #1 Contender just like everyone waiting behind you has to do.

Another reason why I believe rematch clauses are stupid, are case-in-point.. Jack Swagger. I mean, seriously?! I get John Cena, he was jumped and laid out and lost his Championship due to basically being royally screwed over. But Swagger has no excuse. Not only was he only a Champion for all in about 2 monthes, but he only defended his title (successfully), without losing in some manner - once on ppv. And he lost more than he won on the regular televised shows. Furthermore, and my final piece of evidence.. He. Was. Pinned. When. He. LOST.

No one interferred and caused him to lose. He just blatantly lost. No excuses. No mistakes. No reason for it, other than he wasn't good enough to win. So why does he deserve a rematch? What has he done, thats warranted gaining one? Because he cashed in a guaranteed Championship contract on a weakened and already drained Superstar to win the title in the first place?!?!? Wow, man he sure did a ton to deserve winning that title.

And before anyone argues Edge back at me.. I never felt Edge deserved some of the rematches he got. (Namely most/all of the ones against the Undertaker, since he.. NEVER WON, which failed to bring up any reason to continue giving him more 'rematches'.)

I think if they're going to have a Rematch Clause then it needs to be under more specific rules.

1. If you're unjustly screwed out of your Championship.
2. If you've been a World Heavyweight Champion longer than 4 months.
3. If you weren't the individual defeated, and still lost the title.

Thats it. Only then, are Rematch Clauses worth having.

 

[Viola Moonlight]

Of course. There are times when a championship match goes astray and the challenger wins the title not via a clean victory, spitting in the face of the then-champion and his title reign. Or maybe the champion didn't lose the title by being the one getting pinned or submitting. This is enough to ensure that they need to fight one-on-one for the championship.

Now, when it comes to the champion losing cleanly to the challenger, a rematch clause shouldn't really be invoked. However, it is the easiest way of explaining why the former champion should get a second shot at the championship. Usually, you need to be the number one contender for the championship before actually being in a match that contests it. So, if the person wins against the champion, then eventually loses it... it would mean that they drop back down to the number one contenders position, considering that was the last point they were at prior to winning the title. Therefore, the former champion has one last shot at regaining their title before being shuffled somewhere else. Instead of explaining this entire process, it's much easier to call it a "rematch clause."

On the booking side of things, it's an ingenious idea. If you don't have anyone free to contend for the title, they can throw out the old rematch clause and get these two to fight again at the next PPV, continuing the feud. In the end, it's a good idea and if done right can lead to better matches. Take the Orton/Cena feud of 2009 when they traded the championship around. It led to some great matches between the two and one in particular really outshined their gimmicks (Orton being the sadistic viper and Cena's "never give up" attitude).

A rematch clause will always remain as it's an easy explanation for everyone to understand. Making it complicated will lose people and will limit what creative can do.

 

[Stone_Cold_Randy_Orton]

I agree with TOBW. They make rematch clauses out to be a means of helping the Face get a title shot. It makes the whole thing seem so storyline. Rematch clauses should be one time and for one match and if they lose then their out. It keeps things moving in a fast pace and it makes their matches more important. If you have a guy like Cena lose a match and then go after the title for 3 PPVs and win it, how in the heck do you justify that with a rematch clause? That would mean the guy he beat then gets to go after Cena until he wins it. Instead, they should have one title match and one rematch clause. When that's over the stipulation should be to wait a month, or in storyline words, wait until the next rivalry is over.

 

[CenaFan]

I think WWE lost the meaning of what a rematch clause is suppose to be about. If we cut down the Rematch clause, we can develop new feuds.

 

[Daniel]

I absolutely agree with rematch clauses. They are a way of furthering feuds and allowing them to go into more depth. Look at the fairly recent Cena-Batista feud. Both the WrestleMania and Extreme Rules matches were rematches and it made a good angle. Of course, they don't have to further a storyline of the two wrestlers involved. The Sheamus-Cena rematch last week helped Nexus.

I think WWE lost the meaning of what a rematch clause is suppose to be about. If we cut down the Rematch clause, we can develop new feuds.

Sometimes it's OK to have an extended feud. Quite a lot of the time it is OK to have an extended feud. I would hate it if WWE started doing what TNA do and have a different title contender every PPV. It would be so boring. Wrestling is storytelling and rematch clauses often add a bonus chapter.

 

[Canadian-BadAss]

you will never get a guy like cena out of the title picture. unless injured. there is no way he will pull a HHH when he reformed DX for the 100th time. cena gets his rematch, will lose, but in one or 2 PPV later, will win it back. rematch clause? not so much these days. not for the face anyway. but if the heel looses his title? then your damn straight it comes into play again.

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

Lets be honest, they don't always use it...sometimes when they mention the 'fake contract' it could be a last chance match or sometimes they have a rematch clause on it, we normally find out whether it has a rematch clause after the match...

I do think having the rematch clause is good, but mostly its obvious the outcome will be retaining the title for most wrestlers...

Right now, because Sheamus got DQ'd, Cena's official rematch will now be at MitB ppv.... ryt?

 

[RiVaLGaMeR]

Well NO to be honest. I dont really want to see the same fight twice. Like im all for Taker vs Michaels but a 2nd time... its just riding your own success. Rematches are like a test to see if the guy who won got lucky, i mean from a point of view if wrestling was real so to speak. Its hard to say when you know its fake. From a business point of view, if it got a reaction the first time lets do it better, is a good attitude to have. When you have like 30-? guys its hard to come up with new things so rematches are good options to keep a show running. We have seen Orton vs Cena a WHOLE load of times.

 

[Deadman_Risen]

I like rematch clauses for reasons that others have stated such as keeping the feuds going.

However after that ONE and ONLY rematch I would like to see more #1 contender matches. Sure you could throw the previous champion who lost his rematch in the #1 contender match and if he wins then it seems more legit than having the former champ get rematch after rematch.

To get back to the thread though I think rematch clauses should stay around and although the champion rarely loses I think it helps them to have a legit title defense before moving onto to a new feud. The rematch clauses serve many purposes although I wouldn't mind them to be on the shows more often then on the PPV's.

 

[ckoneagain]

I remember a time when only the shrewd wrestlers had rematch clauses written into ther contracts. It meant that sometimes the face or on some occasions the heel would lose the title on in an underhanded fashion and would have to fight and claw their way back to the title over the next few months. I think a rematch clause has become a lazy way for writers to link together storylines and fueds, like they'll write a storyline or a feud up to a point and then use the rematch clause to write in the beginning of a new feud, like with the Nexus-Cena-Sheamus issue the other week. 'Back in the day' this would have been seemlessly written to move from Sheamus vs Cena to Cena vs Nexus, but now it's almost used as a way to glue two ideas together. Wrestlers didn't used to automatically get a rematch clause, they used to have it negotiated into their contracts which keyfabe wise was why only the shrewd superstars had the clause at all. So to sum up, i don't disagree with the clause, i just disagree that all champions should have the clause automatically.

 

[SpoodBeest]

A rematch clause is important in furthering a story line. If a champion loses his belt then he deserves to get at least one chance at an attempt to regain his gold. Also let's say that something controversial happens during the finish, such as a heel cheating to barely retain the belt an authority figure will give the face another shot where the boundaries do not favor the heel and progress the story further.

Also in story lines heel wrestlers may very well lose their rematch clause. but they can win back contender-ship for the title or they can bitch and whine to authority figures and gain themselves another shot. So due to these reasons you may see that a certain wrestlers are getting multiple rematch clause(s) but that is not necessarily the truth as they got their one rematch but afterwards they gain themselves more title matches afterward.

 

[BK Styles]

I honestly think people are looking way too far into this. I don't see what the fuss is about. Champion loses title; he should have the first shot at it to get it back. Surely, for winning the title in the first place, he is warranted that. Besides, there might be potential of a feud to last forever, but lets face it, most feuds dont.

Another reason why I believe rematch clauses are stupid, are case-in-point.. Jack Swagger. I mean, seriously?! I get John Cena, he was jumped and laid out and lost his Championship due to basically being royally screwed over. But Swagger has no excuse. Not only was he only a Champion for all in about 2 monthes, but he only defended his title (successfully), without losing in some manner - once on ppv. And he lost more than he won on the regular televised shows. Furthermore, and my final piece of evidence.. He. Was. Pinned. When. He. LOST.

No one interferred and caused him to lose. He just blatantly lost. No excuses. No mistakes. No reason for it, other than he wasn't good enough to win. So why does he deserve a rematch? What has he done, thats warranted gaining one? Because he cashed in a guaranteed Championship contract on a weakened and already drained Superstar to win the title in the first place?!?!? Wow, man he sure did a ton to deserve winning that title..

Yes, money in the bank cash-ins aren't always 'earning' the title, BUT the winner has to beat 6 or 7 people in a ladder match, and I count that as earning it.