King of the Ring or Money in the Bank?

[ABMorales787]

KOTR: Its (or was) an annual tournament that happens around every June used to push the winner to the Main Event scene. Its had many successes (Bret Hart, Stone Cold, Triple H, Kurt Angle, Brock Lesnar, etc.) and many failures (Billy Gunn, Mabel, etc.). There's no denying the rich history the tournament and its pay-per-view have, but due to the brand extension the tournament has been hard to resurrect due to multiple setbacks. In 2006 we got King Booker out of it, and we loved it, right? Nope. In 2008 we got King Regal, a great would be main event heel, but what happened? he got suspended.

MITB: An annual 6-8 man ladder match which showcases the brightest and youngest talent in the Grandest Stage Of Them All as they fight for a contract that grants a title shot at will over the year. It has created some of the Main Event players of today (Edge, CM Punk), others were unlucky enough to screw up somehow (Rob Van Dam, Mr. Kennedy) and lose their shot or their title early.

KOTR has rich history, created some of the franchise players of yesteryear and gives us nostalgia to see it in Youtube. MITB showcases 6-8 young guns at the Showcase of the Immortals and instantly shoots the winner to the main event in less than a year.

The questions are simple, which one do you prefer, and which ones better at pushing new talent. So... um... happy posting.

Side Note : I heard from someone that for the 2006 KOTR Randy Orton was supposed to win and get Booker's reign as champ but got suspended, is that true?

 

[D-Man]

I remember the KOTR when it was a fresh, new idea that was creating talent left and right. In this tournament, the winner would easily be pushed to the main event picture and would don the moniker of being the king for an entire year. For some reason, the crowd seemed to love the modest KOTR's and hate the ones that would flaunt their crown and accomplishments. Legends such as Harley Race, Don Muraco, and Randy Savage won this tournament in the past, but the idea never came full-circle until Bret Hart took his first crown. Then Owen followed. But then, something weird happened... Mabel won.

This was the first time that I looked at the KOTR tournament and said, "Huh??" Even at my young age, I just couldn't understand why someone like Mabel would actually win a tournament that included Lex Luger, Razor Ramon, Yokozuna, the Undertaker, and Shawn Michaels. It made no sense to me. By the time Austin won it the following year, it gained some credibility back in my mind, but it still wasn't the same. Then Shamrock won it, followed by Hunter and then Shamrock (which made sense at the time). Then in 1999, the WWE gave us our second hiccup in Mr. Ass?!? I remember that they were trying to push this guy to the moon by allowing him to feud with the Rock (amongst others) and it made me wonder if the tournament had any credibility left. Now, it just seemed like a random PPV and I found myself giving more of a shit about the other matches on the card than the actual tournament itself.

Even though Kurt Angle, Booker T, Brock Lesnar and Edge took the crown a few years later, it didn't matter to me anymore. The tournament idea had already been tarnished enough for my taste. And with Regal winning it last year? I hate to say "I told you so" but I knew we were due for another bullshit fluke. Regal became that fluke.

So here we are, with a current WWE product that is looking for new ways to give the audience a 'quick-fix' of new talent. The KOTR was designed to take a wrestler and give him main event attention in one night. But now that no one finds it to be believable, the WWE needed a new way to give us this 'quick-fix' and they created the MITB match. A brilliant idea that took 6 wrestlers and allowed them to put on a violent, exciting match to earn a world title shot was born. In 20 minutes (aside from an entire PPV or weeks of bullshit matches on Raw and Smackdown) you could find out who the next contender for the title will be. It's fascinating, violent, exciting, and gives all of us a taste of that Attitude Era that we all still crave while pushing the next big superstar. And once they win the match, whether we like it or not, the person that raises that briefcase above their head is an instant main event star in our eyes.

This is a new time and a new age in professional wrestling. Things change over time. I think MITB has taken leaps and bounds over the KOTR tournament. It's just another fresh, new idea and says "out with the old and in with the new" to the pro-wrestling audience. And, it's quicker, more exciting, and more meaningful than the KOTR tournament... that is, until the WWE pulls another hiccup and gives the wrong person the briefcase. Only time will tell, I guess...

 

[JBK2008]

I prefer King of the Ring. It was a tournament style concept and it made you believe that whoever won it was that good and worthy of getting the next big push to the main event level, if even for a short while. It's launched careers (Stone Cold Steve Austin) and not really did anything for them (William Regal, although that was his own fault really). I was a more believable way to put someone over and into the main event scene, where Money in the Bank seems more of an all out brawl to climb a ladder and win a briefcase so you can attack the champion of your choice at any given time.

No knock on the MITB, I do like it and all because it can be a cool match, but it's just not as believable as KOTR when it comes to pushing someone into the main event scene.

 

[tLight]

MITB is great as an over the top put your life on the line for a chance at a Title match at WM. Yeah it gets big pops, and we see some amazing spots, but theres no really story build up, and only one person comes out on top at the end.

but I would rather see KOTR, because it equals more matches, which equals the possibility for more story lines, more fueds, and better matches in the long run. Not to mention the fact it is played out over the span of a few months rather than just one match one night completed in 20-30 minutes.

 

[King Patrick Star]

I personally love them both along with the Royal Rumble. Any excuse to push a Superstar into the Main Event is good. Any creative excuse to push a Superstar into the Main Event is great. These three events are great passageways into the top of the mountain. Yes there were some failures, but that comes with the territory.

With that said, if I had to pick one, I would go with the King of the Ring, but only because we haven’t seen the tournament every year like we see the RR and MITB.

 

[2rowdy4u]

mitb because it happens at mania. the kotr was better when the tournament was longer and it had its own ppv

 

[BillAlfonso]

I think the main problem I have with MITB is that, except for RVD the winner usually take his title shot in some round about sneaky ass way where the champ can't see him coming and can't really mount a proper defense. With KOTR the champ knows he has a credible challenger that is battle tested breathing down his neck.

 

[beefthelegend]

Personally, I feel that King of the Ring has gotten a bad rap.

It "started" (And i use the term with quote because i know it existed before Hart, but his win was the first on Pay per view) with giving Bret Hart his due. He had just lost the WWF title to Yokozuna, and this was a brilliant way to make him still relevent as a main eventer-and it launched a great feud between Jerry Lawler and Bret Hart. (Anyone remember the raw where Bret faced Bam Bam, and Lawler was in the crowd harassing Stu and Helen? Priceless.) Then King of the Ring gave us Owen Hart, quite possibly the most underrated King in WWE history. ANd it was fantastic, because he was just trying to outdo Bret, and the angle played wonderfully.

THen the WWF Botched, and named Mabel King of the Ring. THis should have been a sign of things to come, what with Vince getting off on the big guys. Truth be told, i think this could have gone alot better, had they wrote it better. I think that they should have made Mable a face, and gone from there. But as it stands, it is what it is.

Then Steve Austin won. This gave us THE FACE of wrestling in the late 90's. Love him or hate him, you know who Steve Austin is, and so does 85% of the population, even if they didn't watch wrestling. This allowed him to vault up to the main event scene and become the Stone cold we all know and love.

Then the Next year gave us Triple H, even though he still had his weak gimmick, it was the beginning of something huge. It made Triple H the player he is today. Would he have eventually got to the main event? No doubt. But this just quickened the process, allowing him to gain titles quicker, and start on his legendary resume.

Shamrock winning i really loved. I think this made alot of sense at the time, because the WWF was trying to move him up, and make him a top tier guy. It's a shame it never really played out, because Ken Shamrock was awesome. Can you imagine how much he could draw now, if he was still young? All the UFC comparissons, he'd be an instant main eventer IMO. He was just too ahead of his time.

Billy Gunn was perhaps the biggest Mistake ever, but the WWE followed it up with two of the best Decisions ever naming Kurt Angle and Edge King back to back. (King Edge the Awesome anyone?). FOr both of them, it was a shot in the arm, and allowed them to begin to make the jump to Main event status.

The Last KOTR PPV, Brock Lesnar defeated RVD in the finals, which i felt, at the time, was a great injustice. However, looking back, this was a fantastic decision. It straight up catapulted Lesnar into the main event, where he flourished. I miss Lesnar because he was something special (though i enjoy watching him in UFC alot more).

Then the business with Booker T and Regal happened. Good idea in theory, but in practice no body cared. And now it's gone again. Honestly, i would love to see ECW host it this year. Smackdown had it once, Raw had it once, and now it's ECW's turn. they have all of the young talent, and could use it to debut Danielson and/or McGuinness.

MITB is awesome in it's own right. It serves as the last KOTR did, as a straight up catapult to the main event scene.

I think they are two completely seperate things. And comparing them is like Apples to Oranges.

 

[CJ The Pirate]

I feel MITB should be changed. This briefcase idea has ran it's course now and it's not anywhere near as exciting as it first was. In fact, the only reason it was so successful in the first year was because Edge held onto it for 10 months and used it in a way we weren't sure was allowed.

Then it's just been the same, aside from the RVD way.

I feel the MITB should be used at No Way Out as a way to decide the other main event at Wrestlemania. This way we could have, hypothetically, Chris Jericho winning the Royal Rumble in January and he'd go on to take on the WHC (Smack Down champ) at Wrestlemania. At No Way Out, A MITB could then feature Orton, HHH, HBK, Batista, CM Punk, MVP, The Big Show and Christian for the spot at WM. It's a huge match with Huge workers. It'd be something different to see main event guys getting involved as it's normally a mid card sort of match.

Overall, I prefer the MITB. Now, it's more relevant. I hate how they have done recent KOTR events based only on weekly matches. In the past, it really did look like a tough guy competition. They won the tournament by having 3 matches in one night. That looked special. Being able to survive a ladder match, let alone one with multiple people makes you look great and worthy of your position.

 

[D-Man]

I feel MITB should be changed. This briefcase idea has ran it's course now and it's not anywhere near as exciting as it first was. In fact, the only reason it was so successful in the first year was because Edge held onto it for 10 months and used it in a way we weren't sure was allowed.

Then it's just been the same, aside from the RVD way.

I feel the MITB should be used at No Way Out as a way to decide the other main event at Wrestlemania. This way we could have, hypothetically, Chris Jericho winning the Royal Rumble in January and he'd go on to take on the WHC (Smack Down champ) at Wrestlemania. At No Way Out, A MITB could then feature Orton, HHH, HBK, Batista, CM Punk, MVP, The Big Show and Christian for the spot at WM. It's a huge match with Huge workers. It'd be something different to see main event guys getting involved as it's normally a mid card sort of match.

Overall, I prefer the MITB. Now, it's more relevant. I hate how they have done recent KOTR events based only on weekly matches. In the past, it really did look like a tough guy competition. They won the tournament by having 3 matches in one night. That looked special. Being able to survive a ladder match, let alone one with multiple people makes you look great and worthy of your position.

CJ, I'm sorry but I can't agree with any of this, except that MITB is a better event than KOTR.

Sometimes, I feel like I've seen it all in pro-wrestling. I can honestly say that I'm a smark that's been watching pro-wrestling for 25 years, and every time a MITB winner comes out of the back to cash in, I mark out like a mother fucker.

Once again, all of you claim that you want more spontaneous storylines and gimmicks and the WWE hands it all to you on a silver platter and you say, "Ok, I'm bored now. Next??" Now I know why the WWE hates internet wrestling forums. Nothing is good enough for any of you.

If we use your idea, why would you have someone win a world title shot at Wrestlemania and make them hold onto it for a year? What is the point of it if you KNOW when it will be used? And then why have the MITB match at Wrestlemania then? Why wouldn't the MITB ladder match happen a month after the Royal Rumble?? Even FURTHER, what would be the point of either match now? You've just turned them into wastes of PPV time... now MITB and the Royal Rumble matches would be seen as the matches that get you into the matches that gets you into the main event match at Wrestlemania??!? Does that confuse anyone besides me??

 

[Dave]

I prefer the MITB matches slightly more. The King of The Ring was a great tournament in it's day and I very much enjoyed watching it when it was on. I will always remeber the King of The Ring Tournament that Edge and Kurt Angle contested. Kurt fought 3 matches that night and all three of which were brilliant. Many have said that this was the moment that the character of Edge took off and began his journey on to the Main Event scene. This may or may not be true but nevertheless, the tournament done it's job well. That job is to push mid-carders and get them up the food chain.

The MITB match is similar. Firstly because it is just one match and there is more spots in the matches. Next, 8 men can contest the MITB and only 2 can contest the KOTR final. This is quite important because the MITB has more people meaning more variants and more possible results. For me, this adds another edge to the match and it is just so exciting. They are just spot fests and always manage to steal the show.

 

[y2empleh]

I prefer the MITB concept for many reasons.

1.) A few hate the fact that the winner can cash in at any time. I like this concept. It creates buzz and shock. Who here wasn't shocked when Edge cashed in either time? Or when Punk cashed in the first time (we all could see the 2nd cashing coming a mile away). Then he can come across as a legitimate champion by defending it. What's better? Punk cashing in and defending the title successfully for many months or Randy Orton winning it in a one on one match and losing it a month later?

2.) I think the tournament formula (especially when the tourney is in one night) has become stale. Same thing every time, either the heel got a 2nd round bye leaving him "fresher" for the finals or someone gets beat down after losing and someone has the "advantage" in the finals. I would much rather see a King of the ring be like the old lethal lottery. Start with 8 people, put them in random pairings to create a 4 team tournament then the winning team must face each other. The alternative to the one night tournaments is when the tournament goes on over a length of time (see tna knockout tag title) and you either forget who is in the tournament and/or the tournament takes away from tv time to build a proper ppv feud. For example, the Night of Champions tournament which ultimately led to Cena/HHH/Orton when they spent 2 weeks getting to the result when there were only 3 weeks of TV before the PPV.

3. MITB is much more exciting to see in terms of the match itself. It's exciting and is often considered in the top 2 matches on the card.

 

[lcbball154]

What i would prefer would be for King Of The Ring to happen in june with the winner given a title shot at either belt for summerslam like they did with brock thus fighting the rock. This would do a few things 1.) end the feud for the title coming off wrestlemania 2.) have the winner mabey switch brands bring a new feud to life. 3.) build up some new main eventers which raw desperatly needs. 4.) While the money in the bank match is a great event i would like to see this every year just mabey for the ic title or something the KOTR would let the young guys like swagger, morrison and and legacy put on some classic matches which is what gets them over with me anyways..
where i can see this failing is if they put the already main eventers like hhh or shawn michaels in there unless they are going to help out the younger guy over even more.

 

[travistragic]

Great thread.

I have to go with KOTR. I don't understand why there aren't more single-elimination style tournaments in professional wrestling when single-elimination tournaments are the backbone of nearly every major league sports championship. At any rate, I would say there were only two real failures of the KOTR (Gunn, Mabel); Regal was one of the top heels at the time on Raw and his suspension seriously killed his steam. He's also still around in WWE and still has some time left in the ring to prove himself (albeit, it might be a little late in the game for him and being on ECW definitely isn't going to help).

MITB is, too me, a great match but too much of a hotshot for guys who would've benefitted more from proving themselves through KOTR and then (in some situations) building up a ME feud the next two months going into Summerslam. The MITB match itself can be great, but there are a couple of complications with it. One, you need to have a good group of guys you know can put on a good ladder match (something they fucked up last year when Kane and Henry participated), the downside to this is you get most of the same names year after year, you know who has a chance of actually winning and who is there for filler, and honestly, I don't even know why Benjamin agrees to the high injury risk year after year knowing he's going to get absolutely nothing out of it but a few highlights in the middle of a spotfest. Two, the concept of the anytime, anywhere aspect of the casewinner rarely fits in well with currenty storylines, especially for faces. Punk's first MITB, for example, was a wash that they had to do over the following year because he basically just jumped into the middle of an Edge-Batista feud, they had nothing else for him storyline wise, so poof, that's done. The idea that every year after Mania some guy who's been sitting in the midcard will suddenly jump into the middle of a main event match, run away with the title, maybe with a storyline, maybe not, is going to get old quick. Then again, anytime someone winning KOTR and spending the next couple of months with a crown and a robe on pretending to be "ruler of the realm" gets old quick too.

At any rate, KOTR allows better feud build-ups, better wrestler/character development, and can be a string of potentially really good matches, not just one big ladder match. Also, KOTR can help build more than one person (case in point: Lesnar over RVD) while MITB only has one winner and no "2nd place" or "semi-finalists".

I'm a bit biased though, I hated the past two MITBs and I think Regal is super underrated.

 

[ABMorales787]

Damn , I did the thread during a boring college lecture, and look how my baby flourished(where are my rep points).
Anyway, staying on topic King of the Ring did wonders in its time flops are always bound to happen, but we learn, sort of, the brand extension made it hard to organize the event, it still has a chance to some day return.

But Money In The Bank, showcases talent in Wrestlemania which is great(plus it reminds is Shelton Benjamin is good). To me there is only one flaw, the surprise cash ins, it takes away from the title reign.

Side Note: I fear they turn the Match into a Pay Per View...

 

[PBA_Sensation]

Here is my take. I want to start by saying that the older format of KotR is much better than the newer format and the MITB. Dont get me wrong, I love both concepts.

MitB is a once a year spot fest between 4-5 midcarders and 1-2 guys who are the obvious winner. It creates a main-eventer for one night only, whether we like it or not. If you look back at the MitB matches, have you ever been surprised by the winner except for maybe this year having Punk win again? I mean, look at the participants and tell me you couldnt pick 1 or 2 of them to win and that was it. Sure, you can make an arguement for any of them, but did you really think Shelton Benjamin would win? No. So it throws a bunch of unused guys into a match that most people can predict a winner to. It gives this guy a chance to use the title shot anytime he wants within a year. We mark out every time they use the title shot, and they seem to keep us on our toes. But it also means that we have to put up with this guy winning the belt at some point. So far, I believe the record is 5-0 (not counting Kennedy, but counting Edge) in title swaps. Once again, all of this is whether we the fans like it or not.

The concept of the KotR (in the old days) was great. You had usually 16 guys wrestling qualifiers, most of which were against jobbers. 8 guys go into the PPV and wrestle multiple matches. Its gives us that sense of "man, I really think this guy has it". If you can wrestle multiple matches in one night, it makes you more legit as a superstar. Sure, most of the winners are faces at the time and catapult their way up. They win a match, get attacked by a dastardly heel, and are injured and against odds in the remaining match(es). They pull a win out and the crowd is electric. Then the WWE has the chance to build around the win by putting them in title matches, putting a fued together with some other King, or just showing it as a win, and a start along the main even path. The only failures have been heels honestly. I guess Mr. Ass wasnt a heel at the time, but no one cared for him in the first place. A hillbilly with a mullet and 'stache turns into an ass loving degenerate...makes no sense.... ANYWAYS. Give the WWE credit though for trying to build up more unlikely stars. Mable didnt do much, but they tried to move him up the ladder. No one complains about Owen, because he never amounted to a champion or main even level. I love Owen, dont get me wrong, but at least Mable got ample main even time. Shamrock was loved, but he didnt do much either. No one likes that King Booker wins, but he won the WHC afterwards. I agree, I dont think that Mable, Booker, Regal, or Gunn should have won, but we cant expect them to just give us the favorite everytime. It has solidified some careers (HHH, Austin, Hart) and it has done nothing for some (Gunn, Shamrock, Mable), but it still shows that they put on a hell of a show for the night by participating in numerous matches. The two newer KotR werent nearly as strong, but they used the event differently than of old.

The big thing here is that the WWE are using too many gimmicks to give title shots. You have the RR, MitB, KotR, Elimination Chamber, and the Scramble matches. We need reasons to believe that these guys are worthy of being in the main event, but all of the main event storylines have included the belt when they didnt need to be. Why should we see Orton win the RR just to fued with HHH, when they could have done it anyways. Maybe some spontaneous spur of the moment title shot gimmicks are great, but when we have 4 or 5 a year, its pretty obvious. I understand trying to fit like Ziggler vs Cena in a match without a build, but do we really need an Orton vs Cena match fueled by a random title shot, and not because of history?

 

[D-Man]

The big thing here is that the WWE are using too many gimmicks to give title shots. You have the RR, MitB, KotR, Elimination Chamber, and the Scramble matches. We need reasons to believe that these guys are worthy of being in the main event, but all of the main event storylines have included the belt when they didnt need to be. Why should we see Orton win the RR just to fued with HHH, when they could have done it anyways. Maybe some spontaneous spur of the moment title shot gimmicks are great, but when we have 4 or 5 a year, its pretty obvious. I understand trying to fit like Ziggler vs Cena in a match without a build, but do we really need an Orton vs Cena match fueled by a random title shot, and not because of history?

With all due respect, this entire thought is a total contradiction of itself. You want to be entertained, but you don't want to see things unfold. It just makes no sense...

From what I read, you said you want different title contenders every month because current storylines are dragged out? Welcome to the world of television. People watch an entire season of 24 and only see maybe 1 or 2 potential storylines throughout the season. How can we create feuds with no buildup? And how can there be buildup without longevity? But you still want to see new talent rise to the top. That's what events like KOTR, MITB, HIAC, Elim. Chamber, etc are meant for, right?? They are in place to convince us that new wrestlers are worthy of getting catapulted into the main event without a year-long build-up of a HHH/Orton feud type of situation.

And you say why have Randy Orton win the RR if he's going to feud with HHH anyway? Well, while we're at it, since pro-wrestling isn't real anyway, how about we just discontinue all television shows. They could just post results on their website for all of us to read for events that never took place. That way, there could be new world title contenders every month... hell, every week! That way, they would make no money, no new wrestlers would gain credibility, and no one would watch.... UGH...

The point of these events is to entertain us. Sure, we could predict a lot of the results before they happen, but we watch it anyway to be entertained. I mean, it's a television show, for cryin out loud! Not everything you watch is going to 100% shock you. And if it did, it isn't always going to be good for the product, otherwise Funaki would be the world champion right now.

Nothing satisfies the internet wrestling community... it's sickening.

 

[Junior]

i would pick MITB because when ur watching it can never really tell who is going to win it, even if they put people in there that ur thinking they are going to give a push becasue they usually put two or three people that they are pushing in that match so u can never really think who is going to win. and plus they usually have high flyers and u add a later in there its always exciting...think the past moves we seen with benajamin morrison been good matches

 

[colalella2891]

I enjoy both of these events, especially money in the bank, I look forward to it at WM every year.

Now on to your topic, King of the Ring hasn't done shit for anybody in a while. It has obviously lost its prestigue and meaning. It did push booker t, but his gimmick was shit.... And like you said, Regal won and did nothing with it. I was surprised they had Regal win, I don't see him as a main eventer.

IMO money in the bank definately pushes midcard stars to the main event better, at least compared to "today's" king of the ring. Back then it was epic. But money in the bank has pushed stars like RVD, CM Punk, and probably most importantly Edge to the main event. They all deserved it, but Punk winning twice was a mistake. Anyway midcard stars should rely on MITB, especially stars like Morrison, Matt hardy, and Christian who are possible contenders to win it in the future.

 

[theawsomes1]

i prefer money in the bank it is more fast paced and energetic and that is what i like about it.
here is an idea.
they should turn the money in the bank ladder matchinto the money in the bank steel cage match. There will be 6-8 people that all try to escape the cage and the first one to escape the cage and get the briefcase from the official will be the winner

please tell me what u think about this idea and tell me if u thin kthe wwe should use my idea at wm

 

["Cool Guy" Jensen]

Well, by the time I became a full-time WWE fan in 2003, the King of the Ring annual idea was gone. So, Money in the Bank is my answer.

Ladder matches are my favorite gimmick matches so that helps a lot. Even any other type of gimmick matches, when I see a ladder added to the fray, WHOOO! Well, anyway, back in 2005, the MitB idea was very new and innovative. When WWE made it all Raw for the first time, I thought it was very unfair that Smackdown was not getting the treatment it deserves. Then in 2006, it became interpromotional, but still with a Raw star winning. In 2007, it was changed into an 8-man tri-branded match, with Smackdown finally winning. In 2008, when Jeff Hardy (from Raw) got suspended, instead of finding a replacement, WWE went ahead with a 7-man MitB match, with an ECW star winning. In 2009, we saw a Raw superstar winning again.

The only problem I have is that WWE is not making it seem like the match is fair to all brands. I mean, sure, you have members of all brands included in the match, but when it comes to Smackdown (my favorite show), the MitB has been deluded. Mr. Kennedy only had the briefcase for about a month or so and even then, mostly appeared on Raw. C.M. Punk got drafted to Smackdown as Mr. Money in the Bank, but cashed in only about two months.

What I do like is the fact that it gives some superstars, who would normally be left off of Wrestlemania, onto the card. This year the ECW Championship was not defended at Wrestlemania. Had it not been for the Money in the Bank, ECW superstars such as Mark Henry, Finlay, and Christian would most like not have been on the card. So, this match gives more exposure to superstars. Something that I believe the King of the Ring was lacking. That's just my opinion.

 

[The Gribbler]

I think the old King of the ring in which half the roster would compete is the best, I like any tournament format matches, but to win the king of the ring back in the day you had to go through a number of matches that that made it special.

If they would bring it back say as a 16 man tournament, with full rounds and everything without shortcutting I think it would be a great way to establish the stars of tomorrow.

Hell lets use an example of a future star. Jack Swagger for example (just an example here)

He defeats the mix in the first round, he has established that he is better than one of the other young contenders. He defeats someone like Regal or Christian in the second round, this establishes that he can defeat an old hand. He defeats...say Shawn Michaels in the Semi-Finals and that puts him over a legend.

He moves from here into a match with John Morrison or Kofi Kingston, one of the other up and comers who has worked his way along a similar path, establishing himself by defeating people of varying prestige and experience.

Then the two have an epic war with one another and the winner receives a mega push whilst the loser also gains credibility for his first second and third round wins.

This is my ideal tournament of course and not what happened, But you can see the potential.

Money in the bank is one match. You can fluke one match, and if your injured that briefcase is gone. But after winning KotR your name is down as that years winner and thats all their is to it.

I don't know, somehow the king of the ring just worked more for me.

 

[byrnside]

Personally, I don't see why we can't have both. I feel like the King of the Ring, along with the Royal Rumble, was/is a way to give a low tier main eventer/upper mid carder a chance to win the title, while adding one last dash of credibility in the mean time. Someone you could look at before the tournament and say, "OK, that guy has a chance, and I could see him as the champ." More of a quick fix for someone who's already been developed. Whereas the Money in the Bank is a way to give a solid mid carder a chance to cash in somewhere further down the line, when they're more ready for a main event push.

I loved the King of the Ring when you had to win 4 matches in one night, not a match every week and one match on the PPV itself. It gave so much credibility to guys like Owen, Stone Cold, Triple H, and Kurt Angle. Guys you knew one day would be champion, or at least main-eventing, but it just took something like winning the King of the Ring to push them over that last hurdle.

Now, I'll admit they've ruined it, but why not bring it back with some of that lost prestige? Maybe sit this year out, and bring it back as a replacement to one of this years gimmick pay per views, preferably Hell in a Cell [if you're me, and think they're ruining THAT gimmick.] Have someone like Morrison win, and then go on to face the champion of his brand.

As for the Money in the Bank, personally I love this match. It's one of the most exciting matches and gimmicks all year. I love watching and waiting for the years winnner to cash in unexpectedly.

I think it's totally possible to have a King of the Ring pay per view again, just maybe later in the year, more spread out from Wrestlemania and the Money in the Bank match. Especially right now, the WWE needs as many chances to build stars as possible, I think a third gimmick would enhance the possibilities.

 

[JBK2008]

As far as a single match goes, MITB is def the better of the 2. KOTR though is a build up and more believable way to get someone over with the fans and doesn't have to attack the champion when he wants to.

 

[The Boss]

As to which is better. No question the King of the Ring (Not that it has been handled well mind you). Money in the Bank is nothing more than a way to rob fans of more wrestling matches. While the latter match is almost always enjoyable, the way the contract has been used is just disgraceful. Rather than a wrestler cashing in the MITB and giving the fans a bonus match, or setting up for a nice build up to a PPV, WWE always just has the guy pin an already beaten opponent. Every single time (the one exception being Rob Van Dam). It makes me sick. C.M punk has no credibility as champion because of this. Ric Flair used to say "To be the man you have to beat the man." but these guys aren't beating anyone. It makes the titles pointless.

The whole concept is just to eliminate more wrestling so that WWE has time for more (non)"entertainment" spots. I say do away with the money in the bank.

However with that being said I must say that the King of the Ring needs improvement. They should return to a on night 16 man elimination concept of years ago. Then throw in a battle royal to add more wrestlers to the card. The entire tournament should be done in a single night. This is a real test of a wrestler to show how good he is. This tournament over several weeks stuff is just boring.