Do you like tournaments?

[Radical]

In a recent interview with Chris Jericho, he mentioned that Vince McMahon does not like tournaments probably because way back at WrestleMania 4 it was a tournament for the WWE title and the show didn't do well in buys and wasn't overall very good.

Watching WWE over the years you can certainly tell that Vince doesn't like tournaments. You might be lucky to see one tournament in WWE a year. That doesn't include qualifying matches for PPVs for matches like Money in the Bank.

I personally, really enjoy tournaments even if I don't like who won. I feel that any time WWE can replicate the drama and legitimacy feel of real sports when they have playoffs and tournaments, the better they will be.

But Vince seems to organize tournaments in a way that will just solidify his hate of tournaments when he does a tournament reluctantly. Like the most recent King of the Ring tournament. Great idea! But what a joke of a build up and execution. There wasn't even a WEEK worth of promotion. They didn't even know about it on Monday Raw the week before and promote it. If they gave it 2 or 3 weeks notice they could have had Qualifying matches FOR the tournament brackets to add even more legitimacy feel to the brackets. They end up rushing it, doing a few matches on Raw and then finishing it on WWE Network the day after. Then, when they see the ratings for Raw didn't increase Vince can go "oh, look, tournaments are stupid, it didn't help the ratings" even though they didn't give it even half an effort to promote.


But, maybe I'm in the minority. Maybe Vince is right and tournaments are stupid. I will say that I think Triple H likes tournaments more because of the ones he's done in NXT. I look forward to either seeing Vince have to bend to public opinion and do more tournaments (if that's what they want) or Triple H taking more charge and creating more tournaments.

Anyway, what do you think?

Do you like tournaments? Why or why not?

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Like most things, I think it depends on the circumstances and the details.

I hate when wrestling companies just simply have tournaments where the point is just the simple novelty of the tournament itself rather than any genuine reason. At one time or another, just about every company has done this, though I'm of the opinion that Vince's stance of being anti-tournament is far too militant. When it comes to genuinely shaking the foundation and make up of the WWE, the tournament of WrestleMania IV was really the last time that happened; that's not to say that there haven't been tournaments that haven't been fun to watch or just flat out entertaining, but that was really the last tournament that I had a sense of something truly huge being at stake. King of the Ring is fun but it's ultimately kinda tongue in cheek when you get right down to it; after all, in modern society worldwide, I think the notion of a "king" or royalty is general is seen by the majority as an antiquated, obsolete tradition. In KOTR, we see a man holding a prop scepter, wearing a prop cloak, sitting on a prop throne while wearing a prop crown that's an obvious satire of old American stereotypes regarding the pomp & circumstance surrounding the British monarchy.

In TNA, the Bound for Glory series is an interesting idea that's suffered from a combination of poor creative choices, a point system that, while not truly complicated to understand, has too many redundancies and the problems of having to deal with fans who're spoiled, unruly, pessimistic, negative just for the sake of it or some combination of any or all of the above.

In Japan, various companies have annual tournaments, with those of All Japan and New Japan being the most prominent. In the United States, I think the novelty of an annual tournament wears off after a few years. If WWE makes KOTR an annual event once more, builds it up properly, makes it feel like more of a big deal, expands the number of participants, expands the timeline the tournament happens, makes winning the tournament a genuine career builder/booster and does something meaningful with the winner, it'd be hailed as a huge success. The year after that, I think it'd still be met with a lot of enthusiasm but not as much and that the enthusiasm would continue to dwindle that by the 4th year, the message boards would probably contain a pretty significant number of the various "I'm sick of the KOTR" just like we see with Money in the Bank, the Royal Rumble, Hell in a Cell, Elimination Chamber and just about every other gimmick angle/match WWE has used for the past 30 years. Hell, it might even be a whole lot sooner, maybe as early as the 2nd consecutive year WWE had the tourney because whenever something interesting and entertaining comes about, here come the haters looking to complain, nitpick or exaggerate over every little thing that they can just because they can, whether they actually mean it or not.

Personally, and I might be completely off, I think the best way to sustain interest in something like a tournament might be to have it only every other year and use much of said year as part of building the tournament. We have WrestleMania season during the first quarter to third of the year, so maybe KOTR or some sort of tournament to really build things up for the wrestlers involved over the last quarter to third of the year, not just for the winner, can be used as a springboard to elevating a lot of guys in meaningful ways in matches that are made to feel like they matter. It doesn't mean that EVERYTHING would revolve around the tournament, but the tournament definitely shouldn't be comprised of guys who're there to provide bodies for the few guys the company has any genuine interest in doing something with. It'd take time, planning, energy, cohesive booking and commitment into keeping all that at the forefront from the powers that be. Right now, it's just not feasible because, as has been said, Vince isn't wild about tournaments and I don't believe he has the attention span, interest or cohesive creative choices to pull something like this off.

 

[JoeFromTomsRiver]

If McMahon was so turned off by the tournament in WM4, why would he make Survivor Series '98 a tournament? (The Rock aligns w/ the Corporation who helps him screw Mankind to win Championship)

The '98 Survivor Series had the best buyrate of any Survivor Series before, or since.

Also, King of the Ring was a mainstay for many years after WM 4.

So I'm calling BS on Jericho's logic.

I personally would like to see an Annual #1 contendership tournament.

No desire in seeing the KOTR return as a yearly thing. The KOTR always bugged me because it didn't mean shit kayfabe-wise other than the guy gets to wear a crown and put "King" in front of his name. And most winners didn't even bother with that.

But there is no reason why one of the B level PPVs can't have an 8 man tournament with the winner getting a World Title shot at the next PPV. The Champion they will face will be the person who wins the title match that takes place the same night as the tournament.

It makes too much sense to me. If you want to really test the waters w/ someone, have them win that tournament and become the #1 contender. Based on how he gets over during that next month, you book the title match accordingly.

Also, you can develop new feuds based off things that occur DURING the tournament.

We have the Rumble winner facing the champion at WM and we have the MITB winner who can get a title shot at any time. Why not have 1 more guy who, during the course of the 12 month wrestling "season", accomplishes something tangible that rewards him with a World Title shot?

With the WWE Network showing the "Pay per views" now, buy-rates aren't as important. And I'm not convinced that a Tournament-based PPV would do worse than some of these unfocused garbage-PPVs they throw out there like Battleground. You may have to switch some PPVs around like "Night of Champions", but it's do-able.

 

[Mudlup50]

I like tournaments just for the match up possibility but I could see why somebody in as complete control as Vince wouldn't like them. Say you only have 16 guys in the tournament. That means you have what, 15 matches? You need about 8 faces and 8 heels. They need to be balanced matches that people can seriously believe could go either way.

And when you look at the bottom line, does it drum up more interest for the product? Really it doesn't add that much, more serious fans might enjoy it but the casual fans most likely could care less. Again, I like the idea behind them but I could see why Vince might not

 

[John McCass]

Yes, I of course like tournament. Tournament serves as a platform for the undercard guys to show their credibility. Everyone gets their time to showcase their arsenal. And yes, as JH said, there should be a genuine reward regarding the tournament. A tournament organised for some sorta trophy, medals etc is absurd. Why are people fighting? There should be a genuine reason. Just like KOTR came and went like a fluke. Back in those days, a KOTR victory granted the winners a title shot at Summerslam. If Barrett got the title shot, I would appreciate the tournament but if no, then whats the reason. Was he fighting for a crown and a cape?

I think WWE has enough talent to run a well-executed tournament for some genuine prize like a title shot. Tournaments also fill up the shows. WWE lacks at delivering great shows in the April-December timespan. Tournaments could be organised in order to eliminate the lackluster shows.

 

[SoulTrain4]

I love a solid tournament but it has to be simple single elimination, round robin tournaments are the pits.

 

[HBKistheHOF]

I've always liked Tournaments because I feel like it adds legitimacy to what could essentially be useless matches. It adds some kind of stakes to each match involved & the bracket system adds a way of keeping score basically so that wins & losses really seem to mean something.

Also WM 4 just so happens to be my favorite Mania from the 80's mainly because of the fact that the entire PPV was a tournament for the title & it felt really special. When I watched it back on tape I was completely sucked it & completely shocked not only when Hogan didn't win but when Macho Man finally won because I saw pictures of when Million Dollar Man bought the title & was sure he had actually won the belt legitimately at one point.

So even if it's a quick, thrown together, 1 week tournament to put over a single guy because for the 1st time ever he hasn't gotten injured during the year & they needed a way of maintaining some of his momentum, I'm still all for tournaments.

 

[LBGetBack]

Like others have said, tournaments add legitimacy. I like them.

But the build up and execution of the most recent king of the ring was so awful. Why? There's nothing going on on Raw most of the time. Why not build it up, and drag it out more slowly and have the finals at the next PPV? Make it feel a little bit like a big deal.

 

[coolboarder]

I would love to see a best of 7 series like Chris Benoit vs Booker T but in a tournament for a World Title shot. I dont want to see 8 participants but just 4 participants would be enough with a qualifying match for the tournament.

The series of matches can be held at the house shows or a RAW/Smackdown, giving fans the reason to check in the results from a house shows, maybe a WWE network can televise a tournament matches in a house shows, keeping the track of their favorite superstars and a reason to buy 9.99 other than the monthly PPV shows. By the time RAW comes on Monday, they can show a highlights getting ready for match #5 of the series.

The tournament needs to be promoted in advance to give fans the reason to subscribe and watch them in a house show live, adding the content to the WWE networks. Just a thought.

 

[Mustang Sally]

....way back at WrestleMania 4 it was a tournament for the WWE title and the show didn't do well in buys and wasn't overall very good.

I'm surprised it didn't do well. I loved that 14-man tournament as well as the very concept of tournaments. There's an all-or-nothing appeal to the matches, in that if you lose, you're out......and even if you tie, you're out.....as evidenced by the Andre-Hogan match in which they knocked each other out of the tournament, leaving the door open for Randy Savage to win it. I found the WM4 very exciting.

At WM31, they produced two tournaments. Yes, in some ways, the concept seemed more like a way to get as many wrestlers a WM paycheck as possible than anything else. Still, when Damien Sandow knocked Miz out of the ring, Damien went on while Miz didn't.....meaning Miz could do something about it on another night, but not this one. And after all that, Sandow didn't even win the tournament. Great stuff.

I like Battle Royales, classic Survivor Series matches and whatever other types of "when you're out, you're out" type matches they come up with, as long as something significant is at stake for being the last man/woman standing.

 

[Navi]

I'm okay with them if done properly. The most recent King of the Ring was dismal to say the least.

Having only 8 competitors was laughable, and doing almost all the matches in one night was even worse. Besides you know who would win by pretty much the second match in.

If they were going to do it right, put some surprises in there. Have heel vs heel and face vs face in some rounds. Don't make it so predictable. Stop run-ins, like Sheamus and Ziggler did. That way every match would really be a surprise win. Run it over a couple of weeks, and have the final match at a PPV. Also offer a decent prize at the end, like a shot at the world title. If you don't offer anything, then what's the point in the first place.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I like tournaments, depending on how they are done. Single Elimination style tournaments for title contendership status are often a good route to take. When a #1 contender is determined through defeating other wrestlers (or teams, in a tag team case) from the division makes the winner(s) believable as a threat to the champion(s). It's also a better angle than a generic "Champion has a title. Challenger wants it" storyline. Then you have stuff like King Of The Ring which has a good amount of history behind its tournaments. WWE should absolutely do tournaments more often, and they should advertise said tournaments more. They might be surprised by the interest it generates.

 

[FromGlasgow]

Ive enjoyed watching most of the WWE's tournaments I have seen over the years I do agree the most recent king of the ring seemed pointless and rushed some of the earlier ones and king of the rings has made a lot of memorable moments though and appeared to be a lot more prestige to win some of the earlier ones compared to the past few, Maybe the concept is a bit dated though similar to the survivor series style matches kind of like I enjoy the older ones but newer ones wouldn't really appeal to me the same.