Impromptu Title Matches

[The Brain]

Last night we saw an impromptu IC title match between Cody Rhodes and Ezekiel Jackson. Cody came to the ring to confront Randy Orton and a few minutes later found himself unexpectedly defending his title. The impromptu title match has been part of WWE for the last ten to twelve years but it has always annoyed me a little.

As many of you know I’m a product of the Hulkamania era. I started watching in 1986 so I’ve seen a lot. For as much as I may crave the good old days from time to time I have accepted that WWE has changed a lot over the last 25 years. Even though I’ve accepted that there are still some things that bother me occasionally. Not enough to throw a tantrum or threaten to boycott, but at least enough to start a discussion on a wrestling forum. The impromptu title match is one of those things that bothers me.

As wrestling fans we have to turn a blind eye to logic in order for the show to make any kind of sense. That’s something we all understand and accept. I just think there are some things that WWE could do to add at least a little bit of realism to their product. From a kayfabe point of view an impromptu title match is totally unfair to the champion. When a wrestler finally accomplishes the goal of becoming a champion he should do everything in his power to hold his title. A champion should not be forced into an unscheduled title match without time to prepare. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose. There should be perks that come with being a champion and a champion should not be put at a disadvantage.

Also a title match should be a big deal. There should be a feeling of anticipation for a title match. Even if there is only a weeks notice I think it’s best to try to create some anticipation whenever possible instead of just booking on the fly. Even if a title match isn’t presented as an impromptu match more times than not we don’t find out about it until we’re already watching the show. I remember way back when Superstars of Wrestling would always announce the matches for the following week at the end of every show. One week it was announced that Strike Force would get a tag title shot against the Hart Foundation. It kind of came out of the blue and there was only one week between the announcement and the match, but I remember looking forward to that match all week. A lot of people say they miss a lot of different things from the old days. Managers, tag teams, and longer title reigns are brought up most often. I think one of the biggest things missing is that old feeling of anticipation which has been killed by all the impromptu matches.

One little thing that bothers me about it is WWE’s inconsistencies within their own stories. Why do some title matches require contract signings and others don’t? I think all title matches should have a contract. I’m not saying we need a televised signing for all of them or even a mention, but it should be implied that title matches have contracts. A challenger should have to earn his title shot and the champion should have to sign off on the match. I just think adding a little bit of realism will make the title matches seem more important. Gorilla Monsoon would often mention the championship committee. While we know no such committee actually existed I think it would be nice if it did in kayfabe land. Last night my kayfabe mind couldn’t help but think if Rhodes lost his title he should file a grievance with the championship committee.

What do you guys think of the impromptu title matches? Do they bother you too or have you just accepted it as a routine part of WWE booking in the 21st century?

 

[Dysturbed]

One little thing that bothers me about it is WWE’s inconsistencies within their own stories. Why do some title matches require contract signings and others don’t?

It isn't that others don't require them in general but that WWE decides that to help sell a match they aren't necessary to be shown. As you said, we have to turn a blind eye to logic since some of the most basic concepts in wrestling involve inconsistencies but what it all boils down to is that a lot of things happen simply for the fact that a storyline situation dictates that they happen or because WWE wants us to believe that they are necessary to be shown.

For example, as we know a wrestler can be cutting a promo and be knocked out with one hit yet other times it takes an entire match filled with much more devastating moves to get the guy to be "taken out." As we also know, the most common example may be how main event matches happen to end at the point ppvs or shows usually end and things of that nature . Where that pertains to the visible contract signings is that WWE sometimes seems to decide that they want to have more than just a typical promo to show tension that involves talking so they choose to have contract signings be shown (or in some cases "shows" like a Pipers Pit) even though in reality they don't need to be shown any more than the ones that aren't shown need to be shown.

What do you guys think of the impromptu title matches? Do they bother you too or have you just accepted it as a routine part of WWE booking in the 21st century?

My preference is for them to not be impomptu but I personally have accepted them, more often than not, yet can definitely see why others find them to be odd or bothersome.

 

[The Crock]

I'll admit, impromptu title matches do get under my skin just a little bit. Personally, I enjoy a little bit of hype for each match. That being said, I've come to grips with the fact that they're a part of the routine nowadays, but it seems to me that it just takes away from the importance of the title.

Getting a title shot should be looked at as no easy task. You have to earn the opportunity to face the champion, you have to prove that you're better than all the other challengers out there. Then once you do that, you have to take that next step to actually win the belt. It's hard getting there, so the champion should have some "perks" when it comes to preparing for a match. Even if we all know that wrestling is scripted and that the outcome is predetermined, there needs to be that aspect where they make us believe what we're seeing. We need to see that the championship matters and by just giving away title shots, they're not doing that.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think they need to hype up every single title shot as if it's the biggest thing we'll ever see, but they need to make a little bit of effort. As a fan, why would I care if Rhodes defends his belt on a pay-per-view, which they hyped up for a few weeks, when they just gave me Rhodes vs Jackson unannounced on TV? They're hurting themselves more than anything, really.

Another thing that bothers me with impromptu title matches is that most of the time, the champion will retain. For one, we rarely get a title shot on TV anyway, but to just throw it onto the show like that proves that it's just a filler match. They're not trying to draw fans in with these matches anymore. If Teddy Long had announced that match on Smackdown for next week, then I would be able to suspend my belief a little more. I'd actually, somewhat, wonder about the outcome. I wouldn't just dismiss the match as if it was a non-title contest.

The biggest problem I had with the title defense on Friday was the fact that Teddy Long was using that as punishment for Cody Rhodes, or so it seemed. He made a champion look powerless. How does that separate Cody Rhodes from anybody else on the roster then? What does that Intercontinental Title actually mean? He's not getting more respect, he's not getting any special perks, he just has to carry around that belt. He might as well use it as a paperweight if it's not going to mean anything.

Look, they don't need to go back to using all the booking they used in the Golden Era, but using some of those tricks would be nice. I mean, I'm glad that they've adapted and changed with the times, but they don't need to put everything they once did to the side. They need to respect our knowledge as fans. Some of that stuff would still work today. The Intercontinental Title can still mean something, heck, title matches can still mean something. They just need to put a little effort into it, that's all.

 

[Syborgg]

The impromptu title match is one element that ties in to all of the little things that have taken away from the prestige of the mid-card titles(and to some extent the ME titles too). Your arguement about any title being treated as a big deal is spot on. Every title should be coveted by the people that hold them AND the people that are contending for them.

I don't know if it's a case of too many titles or what it is, but back when WWF/E had just the 3(World, I.C. & Tag) titles every title match seemed like a big-time match. Somehow I would love for WWE to go back to that to some extent. Not 3 titles thing, but the part where the Superstars and announcers alike sell the importance of each and every title in the company. Don't have someone lose the I.C. title just to say "I'm moving on to bigger things." We all know that the WWE/WHC are the big titles, but they don't have to point it out.

That last part was a bit off-topic, but it kinda ties into how the titles are treated for the most part. Same with having your I.C. Champ(Zeke) lose multiple times cleanly on episodes of SD! Everyone likes to see a surprise title match every once in awhile, but especially with the mid-card titles, it happens way too often. While we are at it, I know we are having a PPV called Night of Champions, but in my opinion ALL titles should be defended on ALL PPVs(with the exception of maybe Rumble and EC due to length of said matches). I mean Cody won the I.C. title on Smackdown before SummerSlam, but yet they had to throw together a last minute 6-man tag to open the PPV. Why not have the I.C. title match on SummerSlam?

As for the impromptu title matches, yes they CAN happen, but when WWE does them this often, it tells us the fans that they don't really care about the titles themselves.

 

[Ming]

I get annoyed with impromptu Title matches, I wasn't so much annoyed with the one on Smackdown because I was thinking of Ezekial Jackson's rematch clause getting out of the way and finishing this feud (if you'd call it that) between Jackson and Rhodes. However if they have another rematch on Night of Champions and this is labelled as Jackson's rematch clause I will be displeased.

Impromptu Title matches are evidential to the idea that these belts are just that, belts. Not Championships. Building at least some hype around your Title matches makes a big difference in suspending disbelief and also shows that the Championship matters.

 

[TheCrusher]

Anytime I hear a GM say "You're going to defend the title against (name), and you're going to do it right here in (city) tonight!" I actually hear, "We didn't really have any good ideas, but we want to get the house fired up, so we're going to pretend something very special is about to happen. Then, we'll deliver a so-so match that will end with outside interference if we have a face champ or the the champ running out of the match and back to the dressing room if we have a heel with the belt."

I learned that from my wife. No matter what they say, I hear what I thought in the first place.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

I do not mind impromptu title matches too much to be honest. The thing is, I have seen mostly heels been booked into such matches and that invariably gets a pretty good pop from the audience. The heel must have won the title in the first place by some nefarious means and when he is booked into an impromptu title match, the fans feel that the heel is getting his comeuppance.

The heel has not got a chance to prepare for this match and therefore the audience feel that there is a genuine chanc that he might lose. It can work with babyfaces as well. People may feel that a babyface is being hard done by if he is booked in an impromptu title match and that can evoke some sympathy for the face.

It is something that works if you use it sparingly and judiciously. It does not bother me the very least if there are contract signing for some title matches and if some title matches are just booked on the fly. Both are pretty much examples of opportunistic booking and I do not feel that anybody but a jaded smark would have any problem with that.

 

[klipz.nbd]

One thing that would definitely make me appreciate and like the Impromptu Title Match more is if it FELT impromptu - Have the wrestlers be wearing their street clothes and wrestle in them. How are we supposed to think its impromptu when both wrestlers came to the ring with their gears on?!!

 

[The Future Rises]

The thing that bothers me about impromptu title matches is where's the build up? You know you're not gonna have a title match live up to its full potential without getting hyped well enough. And as you said it looks unfair to the title holder. Even if he's a hated heel it just doesn't seem right.

Title matches need proper build ups or at least they get announced at the start of the show before they take place. I can't remember a great impromptu title match I saw. They were all average, decent, or bad matches.

But I accept it despite the fact that the match isn't living up to it's full potential those kind of matches are exactly what you should expect from the WWE nowadays. It's a whole new era and if you can't accept some new things then where's the fun in watching the new product?

 

[Ubiquitous]

Isn't the whole point of having a heel hold a belt, ANY BELT, to build up the face to the point where the fans just can't wait to see him destroy the heel and bring the title back to where it belongs? Isn't the whole point of having a heel champion to ultimately make the babyface look good? Well, how can fans get behind something they don't even know is going to happen? Why not have Ezekiel Jackson plow through a couple of local guys each week for a week or two, and make his target known (Cody Rhodes), and set a date for the rematch on some episode of Smackdown a few weeks later. Shit, he can still lose the match. I'd prefer he did, actually, but it gives the fans something to look forward to. This sense of "Wow, Zeke is on a tear. He'll get the title back for sure." or something to that extent. What's the point in having a babyface chase a title if you're just going to have the title match come and go without so much as an announcement earlier in the day on WWE.com? Even if he did win, it would be kind of like "Oh hey, look, he won. Yay?" Meh. I'd prefer it if they gave every title match some notice. Hell, make it the main event and announce it at the opening of the show. SOMETHING. Impromptu title matches kind of bother me, as you can tell. You can only suspend disbelief so long before you go "... the fuck?"

 

[Sheamus' Suntan]

I think - an impromtu title match - SHOULD add something to a feud and not just be done for the sake of it. For instance;

You have wrestler A (heel) cutting a promo about Wrestler B (face.) Wrestler C comes in and gets an impromptu title shot. Wrestler C (heel) wins the title from wrestler B, Wrestler A gets annoyed by the fact that Wrestler C got a shot before him, Wrestler B gets a rematch, Wrestler A merges his way into the match. Bing bang boom. Triple threat.

OR.

Wrestler A (heel) cuts a promo on Wrestler B (Face, Champ). Wrestler C comes and gets an impromptu title match. Wrestler A comes in during the match - Wrestler C wins via Wrestler A's interference starting a feud between Wrestler A and B.

So in theory, impromptu title matches CAN create an angle. I believe Zeke got a rematch because he just lost the title? That would make more sense. Now Cody can go on and face whomever challenges him without Zeke having a viable buy into the match.

I dunno. I think Impromptu matches are pretty important now. They don't get my back up at all, I see them as a good way of starting/continuing a feud and making a feud more "high stakes" than before.

 

[Minnesota Connection]

An impromtu match is a bad idea? Unrealistic?

No.

A champion should be ready to defend his title against anyone. A champion should be able to defend that title, regardless of the opponent. That's a champion.

I think it adds something to the show, if you weren't expecting a title match and you are now watching one, then I believe it adds another dimension to that match.

 

[Uncle Phatso]

Some impromptu matches bug me, but when the champion wins it shows that he is really on top of his division. Sure buildup is nice, and I like a storyline with my title matches. But sometimes when that is just all you get a throw together match is nice.

The champion looks strong when and if he wins, because it wasn't in his plans to defend the title that night. But he took the match and won. Once and a while dosen't hurt it like Zeke getting his rematch this week was ok. Or even a random strong contender getting a shot on live tv. Because it gives us somthing to see in a champion, because it shows true grit in my eyes to beat a guy without any notice.

With that being said, if it's overused it just becomes kind of pointless and can lead to shitty booking. Like wrestler A beat the champion, now the former champ has to chase him around to get it back. That type of fude pisses me off.

 

[Skairipa Matrix]

ehh me personally it doesnt bother me having inproptu title matches in the wwe they are just there and usually its pretty clear the champion is gonna retain but i dont think there good because it seems kinda random to me and they usually end up sucking but just my thoughts