KOTR or MITB

[justinsayne]

Well it seems as though MITB has basically replaced KOTR as the thing WWE uses to launch their top mid-carders into the ME level, my question is which would you rather have the KOTR tournament or the MITB match?

Personally I would rather have the KOTR, it produced more great matches and I was found more entertaining than any of the MITB matches, it also allows wrestlers with different styles to match up with each other, where with MITB really only the the high flyers and spot monkeys look good in the match

I would love for them to drop MITB and bring back the KOTR, it seems as they are happy with having 8 guys in the MITB match, so I don't see why they couldn't just put those same 8 guys in the KOTR tournament instead, hell just look at this years MITB, you could have a hell of a tournament with those guys, just imagine that great matches all those guys could produce

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I very much prefer KOTR. For a number of reasons really.

KOTR is much more prestigous, in that it takes much more being overcame that MITB. The winner of MITB kinda almost seems (in kayfabe at least) to be sorta random. KOTR is won in a series of one on one matches. The other reason its more prestigous, is that KOTR gets its own PPV, that is based around it, while MITB is just another undercard match (this holds true for all the KOTR besides two years agos bastard version of it) I think MITB should stay, but KOTR should definately be brought back. And MITB should be brought down to 6 guys at the absolute most.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Aw Justin, how can you put me on the spot with asking this question?! Damn you man. I love both the King of the Ring tournament, as well as the Money In The Bank match. So here goes.. breakin' it down.

Money In The Bank: First, the match roughly holds about half of what a KOTR tourney would. (8 for bank, 16 for KOTR) And instead of taking roughly a month to complete, it takes about 20 minutes. So the suspense isn't nearly as dramatic in trying to figure out who'll advance. However the match itself can leave you on the edge of your seat, depending on how it goes.

To fill 8 men into a Ladder match is brutal, however. And honestly I think 7 or 8 is overkill at this point. Its been pointed out several times that you can truly only have about 3-4 guys going at it on camera in the ring at one time, which means the other half of the wrestlers are going to be doing nothing outside.

Whats worse, this year you have an odd number. What guy is gonna draw THAT straw and wonder around aimlessly outside the ring, trying to make it look like hes included in something? Now thats more or less the downside of MITB.

The upside is, you can cash it in anytime you want, which adds intrigue to everything. And ladder matches are always great to watch when you have the right type of talent working them. So the Money In The Bank match is a keeper to definately have. However, the question is.. is it bigger and better than a mere tournament?

King Of The Ring: Most people get bored very quickly with how most tournaments go. And I agree that I dispise waiting out a month, to figure out who ends up in the finals and wins the whole thing. That is the downside to one part of the King of the Ring tournament.

It wasn't always like that, however. They used to do the whole thing in one night. 1993-1995 they did the WHOLE thing in one night. Those were the days.

As said above me, the KOTR tournament can bring you several great one on one match-ups that you definately can't pick a winner out of. And it can bring you some great finals as well. One of the best KOTR tournaments (to me) just happened to be the 1999 version, when Billy Gunn went through Ken Shamrock, Kane & X-Pac in the finals to win it all. Now THAT was a great tournament. It brought you Roaddog v. X-Pac, Kane v. Big Show, X-Pac v. Bob Holly. All those matches were good to me. (might be shit to others, but they were good to me)

My point is, if done in a single night it can prove to be far greater, and better. Hell, it was the basis of an entire Pay Per View that was one of the top 5 of the year for a long time. That alone makes it great.

Overall: Money In The Bank is a Wrestlemania main-stay, it shouldn't go anywhere and it needs to remain on the biggest stage of them all. However, if the King of the Ring tournament is all done in one night, with a total of 7 matches, one guy winning 3 times in total to win it all. Then the King of the Ring has my vote. If its a shit lead-up, with each round being each week, then its just another lame ass tournament.

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

Both.

If utilized correctly, you could successfully have both and not run into any problems. That would be 3 times in a year that you could have someone contend for a title outside of a typical feud. In a way, have it like this:

Royal Rumble - The winner is picked as the guy you want to challenge either the WWE champion or the World Heavyweight champion and win the title. Since you don't know for sure who will be the challenger for the other champ, at No Way Out, you have the Elimination Chamber to decide that.

Money in the Bank - Use this for someone that you think could either make a huge impact in one shot, or someone who is going to be propelled into the main event with said "one shot". Edge wasn't quite in the main event yet, but they gave him the case, then when he was ready, he cashed it in and they had him as the champ.

King of the Ring - Have it around the summer, with the winner being someone that you want to be boosted into the main event, but needs that extra push. For instance, take John Morrison. If he was to challenge the Undertaker for the WHC right now, it wouldn't seem like he would have as much of a chance as someone like Edge, Batista, Orton, etc. However, if he won the King of the Ring, he solidifies himself as "the next main event star". Use this as the stepping stone. The winner gets one shot at the championship of his choice, possibly at Summerslam. As far as the tournament structure goes, I say you should have qualifiers on the weeks coming up to the ppv, limiting it to a select 8 or so guys that you have in the actual tournament during the ppv.

 

[MrScott]

make money in the bank an any time title shot
royale rumble has to be a wrestlemania title shot
no way out for the elimination chamber other title shot at wrestlemania


then you should make King of the Ring perhaps a June PPV all by itself, done all in one night, screw this long drawn out process of it, of say a random match on smack down, one week, perhaps another on raw the following week. none of that makes it very intresting, and everyone forgets about all the early matches anyway

make it the whole one one night thing, would make for a good show of endurance, and would make the winner look quite powerfull and a legit contender

then the winner, as nofate says then have the winner challenge at Summer Slam. would be a good way to bring up new main eventers. instead of the same guys every single month =-/

 

[Uncle Bagwell]

KOTR made career's 4 certain wrestlers..any1 remember mabel gettin a huge push after he won it in 94 or 95 ? same goes for HHH and stone cold and kurt angle ! this ppv paved the way 4 their on going sucess as it gave each wrestler a huge leap from becomming an average mid -carder to headlining main events world wide ! bring back KOTR ! i remember the rock beat boss man in lyk 6 or 8 seconds in the 98 tournament !

 

[klunderbunker]

Either one works fine for me. I voted for MITB as it has a definitive prize for winning. If I remember correctly, aside from Brock's victory, tehre was nothing guaranteed for winning, aside from prestiege. MITB has been a launching pad for each winner so far, while KOTR has pretty much been hit and miss. I love the tournament, but MITB just edges it out.

 

[I_Like_All_Wrestling]

I happen to prefer KOTR (with multiple matches in one night) because I like how the winner has had to run through a bunch of people to win. But I suppose in MITB no one "looks weak" because no one gets pinned or submits so that may have something to do with it.

 

[Shocky]

Money in the Bank is shit. It does nothing but ruin a once great pay per view by taking 6-8 of the best young, mid card guys on the roster, and instead of using them in 3-4 matches throughout the night, they lump them into a 20 minute spot fest, and you don't see them the rest of the night. It's a way to keep the spotlight off of the young guys, and a way for the guys up top to not worry that the first card of the night stole the show for the rest of the night, complete crap.

personally I love tournaments (wow shock), and think the King of the Ring is a great Idea. However, I hate the dumbed down, 3 matches version. The King of the Ring tournament with 8 wrestlers should be done in one night, not only the semi-finals and finals. You could build a whole pay per view around King of the Ring, you can't do that with Money in the Bank.

 

[Slyfox696]

King of the Ring was always boring, and who really wants to see a long-ass tournament of midcarders?

MITB is much more interesting as it only happens one time, for less than 20 minutes, and generally comprises of really good highlight reel moves, and depending on who is in the match, and actual good match.

 

[justinsayne]

Money in the Bank is shit. It does nothing but ruin a once great pay per view by taking 6-8 of the best young, mid card guys on the roster, and instead of using them in 3-4 matches throughout the night, they lump them into a 20 minute spot fest, and you don't see them the rest of the night. It's a way to keep the spotlight off of the young guys, and a way for the guys up top to not worry that the first card of the night stole the show for the rest of the night, complete crap.

This is my biggest problem with the MITB match, IMO one way to make it better (although it may make it a slighty more complicated match) would be to set it up sorta like the elimination chamber but with out the chamber, just have the wrestlers run in when they're suppose to enter, and then they'd wrestle like an elimination match with people being eliminated by pinfalls or submissions until all 6-8 participants have entered the match, then it would turn into a ladder match for the remaining wrestlers still in, like I said it would make the match a little more confusing but I think it would make things a bit more interesting

All in all I'd still rather see KOTR tournament, especially if they could make it work between all three brands, I've always been a fan of tournaments especially when they create match-ups that lead to face vs. face or heel vs. heel matches that we normally wouldn't see

 

[Slim Pickns]

I prefer the King of the Ring, but it has to be set up like the first tournament. As Sly said, no one cares about a tournament of midcarders. Even if you have someone like MVP in there, it won't mean squat if he beats, Jamie Noble, Paul London, and CM Punk in one night. I would want to see a PPV based around upper mid carders and main evnters. Imagine if you had a tourny with HHH, HBK, Edge, Umaga, Orton, Taker, Batista, and Big Show. The potential matches would keep you interested, let alone just to see who wins. Also, if someone like Orton or Umaga won it would actually mean something because the would have beaten three high caliber superstars in one night and give them instant credibility. Plus, it wouldn't hurt Edge or HHH's cred if they won two matches then lost the third. There is a lot to gain with little to lose.

The MITB match itself is ok but nothing great. The best part comes after the match with guessing when the superstar will cash in their shot.

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

In defense of the King of the Ring tournament (and if you look back, I think they should have both, so I'm not knocking the Money in the Bank) and its position on midcarders, one of the reasons I always felt it was entertaining was that it WAS midcarders. If it had everyone involved, you'd know that they would give it to someone like Cena or Triple H. Someone like Dykstra wouldn't win, but he'd probably put on a good show if given the right confidence. The WWE has a lot of very solid midcarders/upper midcarders that could deliver, like Kennedy, Morrison, Shelton, Matt Hardy, Festus, Carlito, Burke, Jimmy Wang Yang (or Moore, or Noble, etc)...there's 8 names right there, and that's pretending that Jeff Hardy, MVP, and CM Punk are above the King of the Ring status.

 

[Slim Pickns]

In defense of the King of the Ring tournament (and if you look back, I think they should have both, so I'm not knocking the Money in the Bank) and its position on midcarders, one of the reasons I always felt it was entertaining was that it WAS midcarders. If it had everyone involved, you'd know that they would give it to someone like Cena or Triple H. Someone like Dykstra wouldn't win, but he'd probably put on a good show if given the right confidence. The WWE has a lot of very solid midcarders/upper midcarders that could deliver, like Kennedy, Morrison, Shelton, Matt Hardy, Festus, Carlito, Burke, Jimmy Wang Yang (or Moore, or Noble, etc)...there's 8 names right there, and that's pretending that Jeff Hardy, MVP, and CM Punk are above the King of the Ring status.

That right there was exacly the problem with the KOTR. It doesn't mean a damn thing to win if you beat three scrubs in one night as oppose to in three weeks. If you put main eventers in there with one or two midcarders, the midcarders could have a strong showing and still look good, plus the tourny would be credible because guys like HBK and Edge are competing while guys like Festus and Noble only hope to get there.

 

[Shocky]

The only thing that the King of the Ring lacked was consistency. If the King of the Ring winner was guaranteed a title shot at Summerslam, it would make it so much better. The WWE came to rely on the King of the Ring to simply get guys over without trying to continue their push.

King of the Ring Winners:
Bret Hart
Owen Hart
Mable
Steve Austin
Triple H
Ken Shamrock
Billy Gunn
Kurt Angle
Edge
Brock Lesnar
Booker T

Out of that list, Billy Gunn and Mable are the only two What the Fuck's on that list. But even then Mable is still employed 13 years later, and Billy Gunn, the WWE tried it's best, it just simply wasn't going to happen.

Bret was already established and was given the title to give credibility to the tournament.

Owen Hart received a title match at Summerslam
Mable receive a title match at Summerslam
Kurt Angle receive a title match at Summerslam
Brock Lesnar received a title match at Summerslam
Booker T won the title at Great American Bash.

If pushed properly, the King of the Ring can be significant. The WWE really only dropped the ball on two of the King of the Rings.

 

[Slim Pickns]

A shot at Summerslam would mean something for the tournament, but it would still have to be with bigger names. Of the people you listed, yes there are only two "how the hell did they win" names, but I don't remember any one of those tournaments being good other than the first two. The winners may have gone on to greatness, but them winning the KOTR had little to do with that. The actual events were also lacking.

Even when Steve Austin won, he only wrestled Marc Mero and Jake Roberts. Those are two matches that he could have won on RAW in consecutive weeks. Instead, they were overhyped halfway sqaush matches put on a PPV. How many people today would pay to see a four man tournament with MVP vs Chuck Palumbo and Ric Flair vs Charlie Haas. Thats the type of King of the Ring the Austin one would translate to today if the WWE was trying to put MVP over. Compare that to Hart, Ramon, Perfect, Bam Bam, Luger, and all the bigger names that were in the first tournament and its not hard to see the KOTR has fallen mightly.

I'm all for the return of KOTR, but the need to make it more like the first one. Bigger names are needed to bring credibilty to whoever wins it.

 

[Shocky]

I think if you put the Automatic Title shot it brings credibility back to it. Plus if you put the Title shot stipulation on it, you would automatically get bigger names involved in the tournament. Summerslam is the WWE's second biggest pay per view of the year, and for the most part, the title matches are usually pretty damn good. It would be a tremendous way for the WWE to keep a major storyline building up Summerslam from June.

Again though, like most of you said, if they continue to make it a midcard tournament, then it's garbage and shouldn't come back. They need to decide if they are going to take it seriously or not. If they don't, then there is no point in bringing it back.

 

[Slim Pickns]

I think if you put the Automatic Title shot it brings credibility back to it. Plus if you put the Title shot stipulation on it, you would automatically get bigger names involved in the tournament. Summerslam is the WWE's second biggest pay per view of the year, and for the most part, the title matches are usually pretty damn good. It would be a tremendous way for the WWE to keep a major storyline building up Summerslam from June.

Again though, like most of you said, if they continue to make it a midcard tournament, then it's garbage and shouldn't come back. They need to decide if they are going to take it seriously or not. If they don't, then there is no point in bringing it back.

Agreed, unless it is the style of tourny I explained. If you put an automatic World Title shot stipulation in there and then have MVP and Matt Hardy against guys like Kendrick, Noble, ect it becomes less of a tournament and more of a number one contenders match with warm ups.

The biggest thing to have is a eight or sixteen man tourny in one night. Four man tourny means very little and the year Booker won was completely stupid.

 

[justinsayne]

Agreed, unless it is the style of tourny I explained. If you put an automatic World Title shot stipulation in there and then have MVP and Matt Hardy against guys like Kendrick, Noble, ect it becomes less of a tournament and more of a number one contenders match with warm ups.

The biggest thing to have is a eight or sixteen man tourny in one night. Four man tourny means very little and the year Booker won was completely stupid.

See that's why you have the tournament include all three brands, no one brand could do the tournament and make it look decent, but lets say the KOTR tournament looked like this...

-MVP
-Jericho
-Kennedy
-Carlito
-Finley
-Umaga
-Punk
-Shelton

That to me would be a good tournament, and would produce some great matches, with just about all the guys involved being upper mid-carders

 

[Slim Pickns]

That would be a great tournament. With a decent drawing main event like Cena vs HBK vs HHH you could even throw Orton in that tournament and make a damn good PPV. KOTR started goin downhill because they got away from this format and made it all about building one guy while protecting to many others. I for one, don't feel that Orton's cred would be ruined if he went over Finaly and Punk then lost to Jericho in the finals. You could even have Punk go over a decent name in the first round, lost the semi's and still come out looking better.

I just have a feeling if they bring back KOTR it would be guys like MVP and Kennedy going over guys like London and Kendrick just so WWE can protect other name superstars and still build up one of those two as KOTR.

 

[Derf]

See that's why you have the tournament include all three brands, no one brand could do the tournament and make it look decent, but lets say the KOTR tournament looked like this...

-MVP
-Jericho
-Kennedy
-Carlito
-Finley
-Umaga
-Punk
-Shelton
That to me would be a good tournament, and would produce some great matches, with just about all the guys involved being upper mid-carders

How Ironic that those 6 guys in bold are actually in the MITB match. I didn't watch Wrestling back in the glory days of the KOTR, but with the way wrestling is now, MITB is the only way to go. In the MITB, no one knows whos going to win, even in this day in age with the internet spoiling everything, no one knows whos taking it.

Now, look at our last KOTR. How many people didn't see Booker T and Lashley in the finals from day one? I think we all knew exactly what was going to happen, same as every tournament. We all know whos going to win them all, they're just staling the process.

MITB = Unpredictable.
KOTR = Predictable.

Money in the Bank gets my vote.

 

[MrScott]

you need a better mix then mostly uppermid carders though, have them make up like a 10-16man tourney, say 8 uppermidcarders, 4 upper level, and 2-4 regular midcarders

and the regular guys are the ones you have make a good showing, with an upper guy winning. and a title shot at summerslam for the winner for real credibility

the regular guy will get a good push for upsetting someone, and could create some sort of decent feud done right.

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

The problem with having too many main event stars in the KOTR tournament though, Slim, is that it becomes even more predictable. Say it was to take place while we had the current situation, Orton as champ, feud with Triple H and Cena. If either one of those guys was in the match, then why bother having it, you know Cena or HHH will win. If its made up of "upper midcard" to "lower main event" types, like Morrison, Kennedy, MVP, Jericho, Umaga, etc, then yeah, it'd be really interesting, but you'd have to give it to a darkhorse or else why not just have someone like the Undertaker or Batista challenge for the title without winning the tournament?

I agree with you that it would suck if it was just like 4 names and the rest were Charlie Haas and Hacksaw and whatnot...100% agree with you there....but if you make it all people like HBK and Edge and so forth, then the WWE will have a tendency to just continue a feud by having someone "defy the odds" and win the tournament to get that title shot that they wanted (like HHH in this year's Elimination Chamber, which was so predictable that it almost rendered the thing useless outside of some spots). If the WWE would take more risks and have something shocking, like to have Morrison go over Cena in the final match of the tournament, then yeah, I'm all for it consisting of a half and half main event / upper midcard level balance...but if its just going to turn into "Cena, Triple H, Undertaker, or Batista wins again", then why bother?

 

[NYSandman]

MIB > KOR
but,
I agree KOR created a lot better angles, and King Booker was fun. But, later on, what did it really mean to be King, other than a gimmick?

I like MIB because I have always been a huge fan of the hardcore style. The MIB match last Wrestlemania was, without a doubt, the best match on the show. If you can get the proper wrestlers, MOB is a beautiful thing to watch.

Idea. Instead of a suitcase with a "contract", put the crown up there! Winner of KOTR climbs the ladder to get the crown, and ALSO gets a year shot at a title. I'm saying, combine them, to get the best of both worlds.

You would have the opportunity to try for the title, AND you would be king, with a new, good gimmick.

I cannot remember if the winner of KOR got an automatic title shot or not.

KOR=Old School. Reminds me of Haku, Harley Race, and, LOL, Jim Duggan! Had its appeal, but I'll still take the ladder match.

 

[Kobayashi]

personally it's King of the Ring for me, I always preffered the tournament methods of giving someone a title or a title match to the one match of deciding that. I think that the tournaments are a true test of a wrestler. And that can truly make a wrestler, yeh the MITB can to. But I don't know about anyone else but the tournaments left me thinking wow that guy is great he had 3 matches to win it. I admit some of the winners left me thinking what the hell.

And also the matches that the King of the Ring tournament have given us I think it certainly surpasses the MITB. All of Brets matches from 1993 King of the Ring were awesome, at least 4 star matches. And talk about making stars Steve Austin was really seen of as a serious competitior after his KOTR win.