New Concept!

[pipebomber]

I was thinking about the king of the mountain championship that TNA created, which I assume will only be defended in King of The Mountain matches as I haven't been following TNA for a while, and how I like that concept as it was something new that hadn't been done before and I had other Ideas as a kid about making a ladder match champion or a hell in a cell champion.

This got me thinking about what other championships could be made that might be interesting. I thought about one that I called "The WrestleMania Championship" It is a championship that is only defended once a year, at... you guessed it.... WrestleMania. The winner of this prestigious champion would have bragging rights that he beat the Best of the Best to be WrestleMania Champion. Starting at the first PPV after WrestleMania, and every ppv afterwards, you have Tournament matches to decide who will be the next challenger for the WrestleMania championship.

What do you guys think? I think it would be a very prestigious championship, that could be held by part timers, without too many people bitching, while the WWE World Heavyweight Champion, is the Weekly defending best today, The WrestleMania champion is the best one night a year. I think it would be a good fit for the spectacle match at Mania when Undertaker retires.

 

[Dagger Dias]

This is a really bad idea. First of all, a title should be defended WAY more than once per year. With Undertaker's undefeated streak that was completely different and while one can argue that this is something that was defended once per year, but it wasn't a Championship. The Streak was something that will never be replicated. If tournaments are held throughout the year then people will get tired of it and stop caring. This title won't have any prestige. They could have made the Andre Battle Royal into an annual spectacle but they already ruined that by not only giving the winner absolutely NOTHING relevant, also having Big Show win it this year didn't do anyone any favors. If the intention of this is to replace Undertaker's annual match then the only thing you can really do is start a new undefeated streak, and even if they did that then it would constantly get compared to Undertaker's which in the end wouldn't make it as meaningful. I'm against new championships being brought in until they can make all the currently active belts matter, let alone one that's only defended once per year. I'm completely against this.

 

[Reflection]

I don't think that it is a good idea. When you have a mid-card championship that is rarely defended, it loses its value with every fortnight and every month... especially to those of us that weren't born when wrestlers used to go a long time before defending their title.

Remember Dean Ambrose's reign as United States Champion when he was a part of The Shield? He defended it only a few times, and the reign became a joke for many. "Of course you will be the longest reigning champion if you never defend it!" was one line that was seen commonly across wrestling pages and comment sections.

It would become little more than a Slammy Award of sorts, which the wrestler brings along but never defends. Or hell, the "Winner of the Andre The Giant Memorial Battle Royale" tag. Does it even matter after a few weeks? I don't think so.

If a part-timer is holding it, then that's even worse. Out of sight, out of mind. So, overall, I don't think that it's a very good idea, but if it was defended four times year in the Big Four PPVs, then it could work. But once a year is just too less.

 

[pipebomber]

I don't think that it is a good idea. When you have a mid-card championship that is rarely defended, it loses its value with every fortnight and every month... especially to those of us that weren't born when wrestlers used to go a long time before defending their title.

Remember Dean Ambrose's reign as United States Champion when he was a part of The Shield? He defended it only a few times, and the reign became a joke for many. "Of course you will be the longest reigning champion if you never defend it!" was one line that was seen commonly across wrestling pages and comment sections.

It would become little more than a Slammy Award of sorts, which the wrestler brings along but never defends. Or hell, the "Winner of the Andre The Giant Memorial Battle Royale" tag. Does it even matter after a few weeks? I don't think so.

If a part-timer is holding it, then that's even worse. Out of sight, out of mind. So, overall, I don't think that it's a very good idea, but if it was defended four times year in the Big Four PPVs, then it could work. But once a year is just too less.

oh, Im also in support of combining the mid-card titles. the great thing about this wrestlemania championship is it's one that doesn't require a lot of attention until you start closing in on wrestlemania. I also think having the early tournament matches on pre-shows is a good idea as it gives insentive to people to buy the network.

 

[Navi]

But isn't the "best of the best" the WWE Champion? You can't really have two people on the roster claiming to be the best there is. Also what would said person do after winning this fictional championship, just sit around for a year, waiting for a contender to challenge him at the next Mania? If it was a heel that won it then you know the winner of the tournament to challenge him would be a face? It's all very predictable and not a very good idea.

They already have something like that anyway. It's called the Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal, and look what happened to the first winner, Cesero. He was almost forgotten about after winning it.

 

[Softcore Holly]

Eh....I don't see it being all that prestigious tbh. At best it might be a better King Of The Ring. (which WWE has done a pretty terrible job on with it's latest winner) Like it could be a interesting thing for the higher tier midcarders to do if they couldn't get their own match at WM and I guess I would take it over the ATG Battle Royal but I seriously doubt it'll be interesting enough to really care about. Like would I really care if a part timer that I'll barely see anyway has a title that he'll never defend 364 days of the year? Doubt it. It might be a big moment at first like when Cesaro won the first ATGBR but before long this would worth as much as that broken ATG statue piece Heyman used to carry around for a few weeks.

 

[Reflection]

oh, Im also in support of combining the mid-card titles. the great thing about this wrestlemania championship is it's one that doesn't require a lot of attention until you start closing in on wrestlemania. I also think having the early tournament matches on pre-shows is a good idea as it gives insentive to people to buy the network.

But what happens after Wrestlemania? How will the Wrestlemania Champion be different from the Battle Royal winner and the King of the Ring (later on) and make himself stand out? Will he carry the title to the ring every night but never defend it? One year is a long time. People will just stop caring.

Also, if you put the matches leading to the final Wrestlemania match, on the pre-shows, that gives the non-network fans even lesser exposure to what you are doing, or incentive to care about the match (when the moment comes), and consequently, the new champion.

It can work once, and become a part of someone's gimmick, but it will likely turn comical by the time it ends. I'm sorry my friend, maybe I'm missing the bigger picture, but I just don't see it.

 

[pipebomber]

But what happens after Wrestlemania? How will the Wrestlemania Champion be different from the Battle Royal winner and the King of the Ring (later on) and make himself stand out? Will he carry the title to the ring every night but never defend it? One year is a long time. People will just stop caring.

He would do exactly What Mr. Money in the bank does when he isn't cashing in. He would carry it to the ring with him, making him look like a bigger name superstar, and brag about it whenever he gets a chance.

Also, if you put the matches leading to the final Wrestlemania match, on the pre-shows, that gives the non-network fans even lesser exposure to what you are doing, or incentive to care about the match (when the moment comes), and consequently, the new champion.

That's why I would only support doing it for the early pay per views, and when the tournament starts heating up in the later rounds put it on the main card. its flexible, you place it in different parts of the card leading up to the final match, but that's fine if you don't like it. I appreciate the feedback.

 

[SHAGAMANIA 3:16]

How is this different than the KOTR tournament or the Andre the Giant memorial battle royal? It just sounds like another pointless gimmick tournament.

I just came up with an idea of a one off tournament for Undertakers urn at WrestleMania that could be pretty cool. The winner will have complete controll of The Undertaker for a month or so but I'm not sure how you could make since of that.

Or maybe Undertakers urn can be like a MITB thing where you only use The Undertaker once within a year or something.
Guess it would be a cool way for a babyface to get revenge on a heel or a way for a heel to cheat.

 

[Just Do It]

KOTR used to be great though, I still wish they did something proper with it: and the winner wasn't saddled with a "king" gimmick. Maybe just a reference, like the King of Hart's, but if you look at what happened with Bret, Austin, HHH and to a lesser extent Kurt Angle, that's how it should be done.

 

[HORRORHOLIC]

I dont think its a good idea either. There are too many titles already!1

 

[Planet_Velvet]

A championship belt for a match held once a year makes no sense. If WWE really wanted to make things interesting, have a yearly trophy be contested for the Elimination Chamber. Have a few matches to determine who will be able to enter the Chamber. Make it more interesting instead of throwing a bumch of feuds together and adding a few more guys out of convenience. And make it exclusive to the WWE Network... ...for $9.99 of course.

 

[Mustang Sally]

But isn't the "best of the best" the WWE Champion?

Yes, that's the first thing that occurred to me when reading the OP. This concept would be more likely titled: "The Best of the Midcard" and while a bragging rights title is a nice idea, there are two problems I foresee:

--As others have said, defending a belt once a year isn't enough to sustain interest in the title. If the "annual champ" wins again the next year, I can see fans groaning: "Jeez, another year of him?"

--If you like midcard titles, the Money in the Bank mess serves just as well. While different from the WM Championship, it still can be waved obnoxiously around for nearly a year, as Seth Rollins proved.

Still, I want to give the OP credit for original thinking.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

It's pretty much already been said, but this ultimately seems like a gimmick that'd exist just for the sheer sake of existence. Gimmicks that are just there ultimately are about as useful as tournaments that are held for no apparent reason: little to not at all.

Defending a title once a year doesn't really accomplish very much, especially with the modern mindset of fans today who get tired of someone as champion 90% of the time almost the moment he/she wins the title. In this particular case, I think it'd be justified because there's just no real sense of...well anything because, as I alluded to, it comes off as a title created just so someone can carry it around.

The only TNA inspired gimmick I'd possibly be interested in is a Bound for Glory Series type of tournament, which could be an epic happening IF Vince's interest could be kept on it, IF Vince actually allowed someone with more consistent focus to make the final booking decisions for the tournament, IF it was comprised of wrestlers who were booked strong through the tournament instead of mostly just being bodies to fill spots while a couple of wrestlers were actually elevated and IF the redundancy of the point system was done away with so as to result in little to no cheap ending. The two biggest "ifs" are easily the first two because nothing else really has much of a chance of falling into place without them and it's just not very likely right now.

 

[t2ne]

I'm not one to normally say anything negative about anyone that post but this is not a good ideal at all. Keeping this relevant and meaningful is virtually impossible in my opinion. I like the ideal of a new concept but I really don't see something like this ever working. As mentioned they should bring back the king of the ring but with top notch competitors and make it meaningful again. That use to be one of my favorite ppvs

 

[benm1989]

I do agree that this is not a great idea.
But.......
What if this tournament was started at royal rumble, and went on until a few weeks before wrestlemania final 4 could be a fatal four way or semi finals the 2 weeks before gives them few weeks to build up the final match.
But to make it relevant why not to something similar to tnas option c.
Where at one of the PPvs during the summer like a hell in a cell or something where they could cash it in for a title shot would make it more relevant and could elevate a mid card guy for a main event feud.

 

[Jeff Deliverer of Mail]

I like the idea of trying something new at Wrestlemania and only WM. But a new title will only dampen the other titles, especially the WWE Heavyweight Championship. I'd scrap the crappy Andre the Giant memorial battle royal and do something a little more entertaining. Something that would generate - spots - like a Hell in a Cell match but with 10 to 15 wrestlers involved, elimination style. Call it The Hacksaw Jim Duggan Special Cage Match of Doom, the winner gets a golden 2X4 he can carry around. U.S.A , HOOOOOO !!!

Or have 20 Wrestlers fight blindfolded and call it - The Jake The Snake vs The Model Rick Martel Memorial Time They Had A Match Blindfolded At Wrestlemania - match.

Anyway.... I support something unique to Wrestlemania, just not the new belt or the Andre The Giant crappy royal.

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

I don't think it is a bad idea in principle. I think it would be great to have a similar idea to this but instead of making it at WM - make it a smaller PPV such as a Summer event. I would like to see the WWE use a similar tournament bracket to the old school WWF King Of The Ring where it is 32 brackets - only 8 make it to the PPV to compete in the quarter finals, with only 4 in the semi final and the final 2 in the final and have that person win a prize such as "number 30 draw" in the Rumble or a title shot at SummerSlam - just do something to make a new talent get over.

 

[MC_Live]

The thing about the idea is it's a very gimmick heavy idea that is just not necessary. What would the WWE realistically gain by defending a "WrestleMania Championship" at every Mania? Mania already sells itself. It's WrestleMania. It doesn't need any more gimmicks. Not to mention, it it would take attention away from all the other titles, which is not good. The WWE Championship shouldn't be the "Best day to day guy outside of the once a year title". It should just be the best. Period.

TNA needed the whole King of the Mountain deal because they royally screwed themselves by scheduling TV tapings before a PPV. That rendered Slammiversary utterly meaningless, so TNA needed the gimmick to salvage whatever they could of the show. WrestleMania doesn't need that gimmick. It's WrestleMania. That's enough.

 

[Jeff Deliverer of Mail]

Here's a new concept , but really an old concept to old wrestling fans. How about making the main event ( regardless if its one vs one or a fatal five way elimination match ) go an HOUR long to over an hour long. Go for a record one and a half hours or something. Ric Flair used to have one hour matches on a weekly basis , his matches gained more drama and he built a story during his marathons. WWE has a roster full of guys that can easily go a full hour but its rarely done.