No. 1 Contender Matches

[The_Southern_Star610]

So I was watching Armageddon 1999 yesterday, and it opened with an 8 team, 16 man over the top tag team battle royal. I thought to myself as I watched "this is a bit of a different match, and its entertaining as well, these guys actually look like they want what they're fighting for" and then it dawned on me that this particular match was not for the tag titles, but for the number one contendership to the tag titles.

That got me thinking about how very few number one contender matches we see on WWE programming these days. I personally think there should be more number one contender matches these days. They could easily provide a little bit of relevance for the midcard titles and superstars or teams who wouldn't otherwise have a match. It could be especially useful in certain feuds as well. Miz and R-Truth for instance, if this were happening at a different time of the year, you could throw the no.1 contendership for the WWE title in there and it gives the rivalry/feud another level of meaning, rather then the current story of The Miz being upset for....some reason? :S and R-Truth beating on him.

What are your opinions on No.1 Contender matches? Would they add something to todays WWE programming? Or do you think they're a product of the past and should stay there?

 

[Mayonnaise Warrior]

I would like to see more #1 contender matches. It makes the match worth more and the winner looks like he earned his shot.

 

[AndThat'sTheBottomLine]

They don't have 8 teams to put into a match like this. It is however a good idea it would get the wwe to make more tagteams and make them work for their shot at the titles.

 

[justinept]

Couldn't agree more. I was actually thinking about this a few days ago while watching the Edge "Decade of Decadence" DVD. During Edge's match with Owen Hart at Breakdown 1998, Jim Ross kept mentioning the big steel cage match between Ken Shamrock, The Rock and Mankind for the #1 contender spot to the WWE Title.

Think of everything accomplished by that one match:

1) Three of the top stars in the company were put into a meaningful match. There wasn't a drawn-out angle to it. The three didn't have a huge back story. They just fought because they wanted a shot at the title.

2) Watching three guys put their bodies on the line just for a shot at the title gave the championship even more meaning.

3) And most importantly ... it guaranteed the fans that the next month wouldn't feature the same exact title match that was taking place that night.

One of the most aggravating parts of wrestling right now is that we consistently get the same title matches at pay-per views each month. We had two straight months of Punk/Cena ... then we got Cena/Del Rio... followed by Del Rio/Punk/Cena ... followed by Punk/Del Rio ... followed by Del Rio/Punk/Miz.

Unfortunately, that pattern more or less fits into the WWE way of doing things. Wrestler A loses belt to Wrestler B then he gets a re-match ... Wrestler A wins belt back then Wrestler B gets re-match ... Wrestler A wins re-match then insert Wrestler C to try and freshen things up with a triple-threat match.

I feel like the WWE does this because they don't always know what to do with a wrestler once his title feud ends unsuccessfully. Instead of trying to come up with a new angle for the wrestler, they just keep him in the WWE Title match and hope people continue to buy it.

Having #1 Contenders matches would be an easy out for wrestlers that aren't in the WWE Title match. Instead of wrestling for the title again, they could wrestler for a chance to wrestle for the title ... and it would guarantee the fans a unique title match at each pay-per view.

 

[Skairipa Matrix]

i like #1 contender matches there entertaining and when its not obvious whos gonna win there pretty entertaining id like to see them more personally as long as it wasnt over used but a fair amount of them wouldnt be bad

 

[NewWooWooWooOrder]

Not that I don't want to see it, but think about the money. WWE's PPV buys and draws are from WWE champ and World Heavyweight champ and whatever cm punk does. If there was a zack ryder vs cody rhodes number one contender match at a PPV, would it sell the PPV and/or shirts and/or the following PPV they star in? This is basically the premise of the royal rumble and money in the bank, it makes being a number one contender interesting and draws the audiences attention. Again, not saying they shouldn't do it, but the time and money to build up that #1 star is better used elsewhere as they do with Ryder (I think lol).

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Not that I don't want to see it, but think about the money. WWE's PPV buys and draws are from WWE champ and World Heavyweight champ and whatever cm punk does. If there was a zack ryder vs cody rhodes number one contender match at a PPV, would it sell the PPV and/or shirts and/or the following PPV they star in? This is basically the premise of the royal rumble and money in the bank, it makes being a number one contender interesting and draws the audiences attention. Again, not saying they shouldn't do it, but the time and money to build up that #1 star is better used elsewhere as they do with Ryder (I think lol).

WWE Champion = CM Punk. No complaint there, he's selling a lot of merch. His t-shirt sales have continued to do incredibly well, and he's maintained a top spot on the list of merch pushers.
World Champion = Daniel Bryan. You're telling me DBD is pushing merch? I highly doubt it.

The WWE makes money off of John Cena, CM Punk, (for now) Zack Ryder, Rey Mysterio, (surprisingly) the Miz, and a small handful of others. This rarely changes depending on who is holding what title, nor do I think the WWE's bottom line is going to be hurt if they hold a couple of contender's matches.

We actually do a get a lot more #1 contender matches than you'd think. It's just that most of the time they are disguised by a simple statement like "if Mark Henry wins this match, he will face Daniel Bryan for the title at ____" Rarely are they promoted as true #1 contender matches. Rarely is there a week or two of build to a contender's match, and that is a mistake if you ask me. For me, they add a much-needed importance to the title match that will follow. If Mark Henry has to get through the Big Show at TLC in a Tables match just to get a shot at the World title, it makes DBD seem like a more competent defender that you have to work to challenge, and it makes the challenger seem like he actually earned his right to be in the match.

It's also an easy way to add intensity to an otherwise dull feud going into a PPV. Suddenly you can run Dolph Ziggler vs. John Cena, for no other reason than because they both want a shot at CM Punk's title. And other drama is just icing on the cake. So yes, in my opinion we need more contender matches, if not at least one for every time a guy wants to face the champion... Why should anybody just be granted a shot at the "most prestigious title in pro wrestling"!?

 

[Ry.the_Stunner]

Something that always used to make me laugh was back in the day (Attitude Era and such), you'd see squash matches for the championship. Like...you'd see something like HHH vs. Taka Michonoku for the WWF championship...and you'd think to yourself: you have these upper card guys who have to fight hard for their #1 contendership, and then you see these jobbers just handed title matches just for the sake of jobbing to the champion. Just didn't seem very fair to those who had to actually fight in a #1 contender match.

 

[ECW Dan Selby]

I think we have enough Number 1 Contender World Title/WWE Title matches, but we very rarely see them for the undercard belts.

I've thought this for absolutely ages.

They need to go even deeper than that. You need to have non-Number 1 Contender matches to establish who should BE in the Number 1 Contenders match, if that makes sense.

If you're going to have ample amounts of titles (as WWE do), you need more depth in each division, not just X meets Y for the title for some unknown reason. It makes no sense and completely devalues the title and its respective division.

But let's face it, I don't think WWE are too fussed.

 

[Amarillo del Bosque Verde]

I actually always liked number one contenders matches. Dunno why. I always really liked them though. I guess it's just seeing a match with multiple wrestlers and the winner getting a title shot pumped me up for that title shot. One of my favorites would be Jeff Hardy vs. William Regal vs. Shelton Benjamin vs. Santino Marella for a shot at Umaga's Intercontinental Title.

Something that always used to make me laugh was back in the day (Attitude Era and such), you'd see squash matches for the championship. Like...you'd see something like HHH vs. Taka Michonoku for the WWF championship...and you'd think to yourself: you have these upper card guys who have to fight hard for their #1 contendership, and then you see these jobbers just handed title matches just for the sake of jobbing to the champion. Just didn't seem very fair to those who had to actually fight in a #1 contender match.

Which is funny, because those "jobbers" deserved those shots more than the main eventers. I'm sure Taka Michinoku worked a lot harder for nothing than The Rock did for, well, everything. But that's a story for a wholeeeeeeee 'nother time bros.

 

[mb47]

This is a perfect thing to be utilized by the WWE right now.

Firstly look at the array of talent that has potential, I'm talking your Cody Rhodes etc here, these guys are firmly on the borders of being top talent. True #1 Contender matches are a great way to give these guys matches with top talent and evaluate them. I would personally love to see Cody without a title having the odd short feud for about a month where he's battling a top talent for a shot at the title. We all know guys like Cody will be a World Champion but not sure as to when so it gives the match an essence that we don't know who will win while also allowing everyone in the back to assess whether some of these guys are ready, if they can work a top level match and really get the audiences attention as a main draw for the company.

Secondly, I agree with others, it would add more prestige back to the World Titles and can make smaller guys like DB seem like more credible champions. Obviously though it needs to be done correctly for it to work but it's one of the easiest things to pull off.

Thirdly, imagine how great this would be if we had people like Cena drop out of the title picture more while still being a top guy? Cena could easily be thrown in to Triple Threat #1 Contender matches against 2 younger guys, have a younger guy win and fact the champion at the next PPV, win or lose he's kept Cena out of the title picture, we get new and refreshing title matches and Cena stays relevant at the top. To me WWE just doesn't know how to juggle the stars it has. You have some really talented guys in main events then suddenly they're in matches with low-mid carders...Where is the logic in that? #1 Contender Matches allow WWE to keep the likes of Sheamus near the top of every card and it keeps his character looking strong, it keeps his future bright and it revolves the top guys round more.

All in all yes I would really want to see more "real" #1 Contender matches. I'm talking having these only on PPV, making a big deal out of them. Not just randomly throwing a match on Raw or SD where the winner gets a title shot. Younger guys get more pushes and more chance to work at the top level, talent that's always involved with the title can be backed off more while still being a top talent and finally the value of both World Titles is greatly increased. I honestly don't see a downside to it as long as WWE continue to rotate the guys in the #1 Contender matches otherwise we'll have what we're receiving now just with another level in place and although the initial value to the titles will be increased it will soon get stale.

Side Note: I would love to see King of the Ring return as a full time PPV and have maybe 4 guys battle on say a points system like Elimination Fatal Fourway, Tag Team match etc... And in the end the guy with the most points will receive an Intercontinental Title shot at the next PPV. Pull the focus off of the World Titles and back to a belt that has a lot of history and great champions and use it to create future stars.

 

[bryan51348]

I actually always liked number one contenders matches. Dunno why. I always really liked them though. I guess it's just seeing a match with multiple wrestlers and the winner getting a title shot pumped me up for that title shot. One of my favorites would be Jeff Hardy vs. William Regal vs. Shelton Benjamin vs. Santino Marella for a shot at Umaga's Intercontinental Title.



Which is funny, because those "jobbers" deserved those shots more than the main eventers. I'm sure Taka Michinoku worked a lot harder for nothing than The Rock did for, well, everything. But that's a story for a wholeeeeeeee 'nother time bros.

The only reason guys like taka faced HHH and Shannon moore faced JBL for a wwe championship was to boost that top heel ego as being a fighting champion. We all know that taka and moore never belonged in a wwe championship match but it was all apart of the storyline for that top heel. I liked #1 contender matches and I think we will never see much of any because the wwe is not about becoming #1 contender for championship. Wwe has champions around because its a tradition and anyone can be #1 contender these days. Did anyone see Swagger jus randomly get a shot at the U.S. Title. Thats a breif example their. The only #1 contenders matches we will see is the royal rumble and Money in the bank. This business is more about entertainment now than earning a championship match on a regular basis.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

I agree, there should be more #1 contender matches and more structure to it. The problem now is the ridiculous "rematch clause." You want to give a guy a rematch, fine but it should be one rematch and that's it. Not 3 rematches (I'm including a rematch as any match involving the the champion and the guy he just beat, even it's a triple threat with a new guy in there, that's still a rematch as far as I'm concerned). They should either have structured #1 contender matches over the course of a couple weeks to figure out the #1 contender for whatever belt it is.

 

[Cats Pajamas]

Which is funny, because those "jobbers" deserved those shots more than the main eventers. I'm sure Taka Michinoku worked a lot harder for nothing than The Rock did for, well, everything. But that's a story for a wholeeeeeeee 'nother time bros.

I don't see where that's a fair assumption. What makes you think Taka Michinoku was such a hard worker, or better yet how would you deduce the Rick was lazy?

Remember that match that showed Jeff Hardy taking on the American Badass in a ladder match for the WWE title on Raw a few years ago? That jerk Jeff Hardy didn't belong there; he wasn't in the Undertaker's league and it looked stupid. True, that's not really what the point of that segment was, but it looked stupid. A no. 1 contenders match could have solved that. They should have more of these matches, for all the reasons that nice guy with the long list above me has pointed out.

When I get on the PC later I'm gonna Rep you good, whoever you were!

I got Rep'd! Yay!

 

[Shotaro]

I think the lack of obvious #1 contenders matches and even the lack of #1 contender feuds is why there is no title scenes right now. I mean there is no real indication of who is chasing Jack Swagger for the US title, nor Cody Rhodes for the IC. A simple feud between two guys laying claim to a title shot would give either of those divisions new life and the titles extra respect overnight.

 

[SD619]

I do miss the number 1 contender matches. Lately all they have being doing is battle royals for the no.1 contender. Having a tournament of 4 or 8 people spread across 3 weeks with the finals being held on a PPV would be a good way of giving both the winner and the tournament some credibility. Plus, the tournament can be used to start new feuds or progress current ones.

I expected the recent Christian vs Sheamus matches to be no.1 contender matches.