Non-Title Matches with Champions don't make any sense!

[Ferreira]

As the title says it doesn't make any sense to have your champion fighting another wrestler without putting the belt on the line.

Yeah, I know, this is pro wrestling, it's fake and the belt it's just a prop, but still, don't they need it to make it important? If they do why wouldn't they copy the UFC style?

In UFC you will never see a champion fighting another wrestler without putting the belt on the line, and it makes perfect sense.

Why I am why posting this thread on TNA's section? It's easy, I think that TNA needs to be the promotion that do this first. They need to innovate, and this is the perfect thing for them, if RVD everytime fights on iMPACT! needs to have his title on the line, then the title and his reign will get more important.

Just think about it, if you are champion is able to defeat 5 different wrestlers within two or two months he is not more important than someone that beats a guy one time and loses the championship three months later?

Just my two cents, what's your opinion on this matter? Should TNA do this? And should WWE copy this idea? (or vice-versa...)

 

[16mikeytot]

Ok your only missing one big thing. Why the hell would Wwe have ppv's then? Hey lets put the Wwe title on the line on raw every week so people won't have to order ppv's. Your idea makes no sense because you can't compare fake sports to real ones. How would you build fueds if every week the champion is defending his title against someone else. Also don't say well the champ shouldn't wrestle each week because parents pay money for their kids to see John Cena wrestle. No offense dude but this is a dumb idea.

 

[BourneToFly]

I completely agree with mikeytot. Why have PPVs? Also, it would get really boring seeing the same match 20 times. There are only a handful of main eventers, but there is a company full of wrestlers. In TNA, since you posted the thread here, we have RVD as the champ. Let's say RVD has a match against Mr. Anderson, and Jeff Hardy fights AJ Styles, just so they mix up the storylines. So what? Anderson gets a title shot? What has he done to earn it? The ngiht after a PPV, you don't usually have a #1 contender. The champion just beat someone, and there hasn't been a #1 contender match yet, so who should he fight? It can't be the same person because he already beat them. They would need to earn their rematch. This is just a bad idea. Sorry man.

 

[Syborgg]

It's not the worst idea really. The biggest way around it is to have Cena in more tag matches or what have you. I agree we don't need a Heavyweight title match on every RAW or Smackdown! and maybe the OP's idea is too far to the extreme, but what I would like to see is more title matches of any kind on RAW and Smackdown!. I mean think about the best Impact so far was the one with RVD winning the title over AJ Styles. We haven't had a RAW or Smackdown with that kinda electricity in a long time. So do I agree that every champion's match should be a title match? Probably not, but I do think seeing more WWE/WHC matches on free T.V. would help get more people watching. Even if they only had them on the 3hr "special" RAW's.

 

[blackmetalbuick]

Actually I agree with this, it would be a refreshing thing for pro wrestling.

For those of you saying why have PPVs or you don't want to see title defenses every week on television -- it wouldn't have to be every week and the PPV would still be valuable. A lot of times in WWE and TNA, they already keep the champion out of too many one-on-one bouts. Leading up to a PPV, you'll see the champ involved in tag matches, triple threats, etc, usually involving the top one or two contenders. So you continue that same pattern, and the one-on-one title defense with the #1 contender still takes place at the PPV.

Or, the champ doesn't need to be fighting as often on regular televised events. That's what I miss about the wrestling of the 90s, where a big part of the story was a feud involving those CONTENDING for the title. The champion should cut promos, feud, have backstage segments, and finally at the end of the month we determine who gets the title shot at the PPV.

So I think I agree with this. The champion shouldn't be in one-on-one matches unless it's a title match with the top contender. Make "rankings" important again. Make matches for #1 contender just as important to the title picture as the champion. Keep wrestlers clearly classified in their divisions aka world title, IC title, TV, title, whatever belts you're going to have, and make it clear that their mission is to climb that ranking ladder and reach the champion.

It should constantly be an ongoing tournament for the championship for the wrestlers involved in that division. Not that hard to book interesting matches and feuds when you have it laid out over the basic structure of aiming for the title.

So many mid carders just float around and get caught up in feuds over nothing more than a simple rivalry with another wrestler, just for the sake of a storyline, and that's ok every once in a while (a feud over a love interest, a failed alliance/team, etc), but for the most part, why would a wrestler just be part of a company, wrestling match after match, and not showing any interest in the title? Everyone should be gunning for the top guy in their tier.

 

[EnigmaticAngel]

Honestly. I like the idea of having a title match on every show. I'm just not sure about the world title bout. I mean the world title for each show is the cornerstone I think it being defended every week would lower its prestige. Not to mention have have the IWC fussing again about something else, no offense. But I would definitely like to see a belt defended every week.
For TNA they could use the Global belt, which is with all due respect a joke. But if the belt were defended once a week midcard then it could mean more.
For Raw I'd love to see them bring in their version of the old "WCW Television" title to be defended on television. I just don't see the Miz defending the US title every week, but then again Idk. He is talented enough to be a main feature of Raw, let me clear that up before all the Miz fans out there bomb me, he's just always got bigger things goin on.
For Smackdown, since they have most of the cruiserweights that are still floating around they might could use the Cruiserweight championship. Or they could go a totally different route and just bring in a new belt altogether.
I just like most others don't see how having a world title defense would be a good thing. And I know you used UFC as an example. But what you have to see is that UFC doesn't have a weekly show. They have a PPV every once in a while and I don't pay much attention to the PPVs, other than to watch replays on SpikeTV (shameless plug), so I could be wrong on this but I don't think they even defend the world title every time there. That's just my opinion.

 

[killswitch3:16]

I disagree on the fact that a champ ALWAYS has to put his title on the line. i mean, if RVD puts his title on the line EVERY freakin impact, then that would reduce the lackluster of the TNA championship. And yes, why did they invent PPVs? I think you can answer that yourself. u can possibly do those matches on TV, IF AND ONLY IF, the feud has been a huge hit and the fact that 2 guys can't stand each other anymore. Quick example, Angle vs Lesner in an Iron Man Match i think 2 weeks after SSeries. I think that was the most greatest title changes in TV history. So you see, title matches are meant to happen if necessary.

 

[beefthelegend]

Great Idea. Sure, let's have the TNA Champion defend the title everytime he has one on one matches.

And then, to show that pro wrestling is JUST as legit as UFC, let's give them three to four months off after every defense.

It's true-this isn't the worst idea ever. That would be the Barry Horrowitz push. But it's pretty bad. I think it would only serve to make the titles have less meaning. As opposed to being defended against quality opponents, it's defended against any, to borrow a phrase, ham-and-egger in the industry. Example: RVD vs. AJ Styles for the TNA title: good! RVD vs. James Storm (who he faced one on one at Lockdown): BAD!

Everything is fine with the titles, and even the title holders. It's the ludacrous stories and focus on Hogan that is TNA's problem.

 

[cbear47]

The reason this wouldn't work, and the reason is it isn't done:

You want to give Mid-carder A (MVP) a push to the secondary title, but he's been jobbing too long, and people won't buy it. So you go to Champion 1A (Cena) and have them fight it out, and maybe even want to give MVP the duke, so of course, the title can't be on the line!

Now, let's say, hey, we'll just have him ALMOST win (Dusty finish, anyone?). Sounds good.

Now Cena misses a kick-out cue. Or he hurts his knee, and they need to end the match. MVP pins Cena to save face for everyone... and now, under the "title must be defended" scenario, MVP is an unbelived 1A champ instead of a believeable secondary champ.

I still think this is what happened with Swagger, but I see this is in TNA so I'll stop right there.

 

[Ferbian]

When the champions are in a match they shouldn't necessarily always be title matches, think about it this way, you use UFC as an example, well UFC is legitimate, they build careers on being undefeated and retaining their championships through legitimate fights.

Wrestling has the winner determined, and let's say for example RVD, or John Cena are both scripted to hold the championships for at least 5 months to go (I know, long time, it's an example) that would require them to go undefeated for 5 months, which will ruin the excitement and would make the matches way too predictable because you would be pretty certain that "oh well he's gonna retain" because the majority of people know wrestling is scripted, as opposed to UFC where people don't know whether he'll retain, even if his undefeated streak is.. 15 - 0 for example.

It wouldn't work, that's what I'm saying.

 

[KoC417]

NO NO NO NO NO. Every time a champion goes into a match it shouldn't be for the title!!!

That would essentially mean every match of every show is a title match especially when feuds are going on. Except when there would be tag matches. However that would require you to potentially force 2 horrible people together as a tag team.

The way the system makes sense is have a NON title match so the person can either defeat the champion (thus proving they DESERVE to be in a championship match) or lose to the champion (thus making them the "hungry challenger")

It's amazing how people complain in one forum about how they dislike quick reigns for champions. Yet if you have the champion defending his title EVERY time he goes into singles competition all you are going to HAVE is short title reigns. Because let's face it... DQ finishes are BS too so the only thing this scenario would create is... SHORT, POINTLESS TITLE REIGNS.

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

You're wrong, how else are you supposed to build a feud, pro wrestling is fixed, ufc is like boxing, shouldn't be compared to wrestling....defending the title every week doesn't make sense, brock doesn't defend his belt every week, nor does david haye, they defend it like every 2 or 3 months, they get hurt badly, wrestlers like cena, rvd, hardy etc. after every match, they go to the back and just have a massage(i think i've mispelt it)....

in ufc, they build fights using promotion, wwe, tna, use their weekly shows...pro wrestling shouldn't try to be more like ufc, because simply, it isn't...

 

[KKarvox]

I actually agree with the op in theory. If every singles match the champ fought in was a title match, it would not only give the title a feel of more prestige, it would also add an element of surprise to when the title will change hands, although i would still hold off title changes until ppv's, which would keep PPV's relevant. Just because the title is always on the line, doesn't mean it needs to change hands on TV. If the champ is in a match, and they are going to, or should win, then the title should be on the line. The only exception would be tag matches or the like.

I think it would make the title seem alot more important if the announcers constantly talked up how many times the title has been defended so far. For example, if a wrestler defends his title 3-4 times a month, and holds the title for about six months, then they have a title defense streak of 18-24 defenses, and that increases the longer they hold the title. That SOUNDS pretty damn impressive when you think about it. Another benefit of this idea is when someone builds up a considerable defense streak, it makes it that much more important when he finally loses the title. This is a brilliant idea when building a young champion or pushing a wrestler as a dominant force, and this is an idea that is applicable to both TNA as well as WWE.

Now, what i dislike about the idea, is that the champ, essentially has to abstain from losing for months at a time, apart from DQ and tag matches, which means you wouldn't be able to have them loses to guys you are trying to get over (i.e. When John Morrison beat CM Punk as Champ, and Jack Swagger), but it would conversely, make the champion look majorly strong, which is something that would be a possibly major benefit. I like the idea, but it wouldn't be done.

 

[Cookie14]

The champion actually DOES defend his title most weeks, but they do it in dark matches after the show has finished on TV.

But I would not like to see the titles being defended every time the champion wrestles, unless they only have 4/5 matches a year. Look at Jack Swaggers current reign, in non-title matches he has lost to Taker, Orton (twice), JoMo, and I get the feeling I'm forgetting about someone else. But there you have 4 different champions within a month.

And wasn't Jericho still world champion when he lost to Heath Slater? Enough said (If I'm correct about that lol)

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

I think when a champion has a singles match, it should be for the title. It makes the belt more prestigious, and makes seeing the champion a bigger privilege than seeing him lose every week, then somehow win his PPV match. Tag matches would be fine. But as far as a champion wrestling a singles match? Shouldn't happen at all.

When Ric Flair was NWA Champion, he RARELY wrestled a non-title match besides doing a 'mame a jobber' match on TBS' weekly show. When he wrestled at major events or house shows, he was either in tag matches with the Horsemen or defending his title. No in between. If you seen Flair in a singles match, you seen him defending his belt. That's why no one cares for wrestling these days. The title means something and in TNA, it doesn't seem to be much of a focus at all.

 

[Alex]

Trouble is the champion is (usually) a big draw and the company want to capitalise on this each week. If he wrestled a title match nearly every week people and then defened the title on PPV, PPV would go down because can see a title match for free, yes it brings prestige to the belt but when people see one thing for free on TV why would they want to pay for the same thing on PPV???

Someone mentioned UFC, yes the champion only defends against #1 contenders, but UFC doesn't have a weekly TV show (to my knowledge) where they all go and compete against each other to lead to a PPV.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

As the title says it doesn't make any sense to have your champion fighting another wrestler without putting the belt on the line.

Way back when the only wrestling you could see was something that happened monthly, I would agree with you. But in modern times where you need those little things to keep your attention (like non-title matches with well-known champions) held almost daily, I respectfully disagree.

Yeah, I know, this is pro wrestling, it's fake and the belt it's just a prop, but still, don't they need it to make it important? If they do why wouldn't they copy the UFC style?

Copying is the last thing a company should ever do. I'm glad that I can watch WWE, and then some other day turn it to UFC and realize they aren't the same product.

In UFC you will never see a champion fighting another wrestler without putting the belt on the line, and it makes perfect sense.

Well yeah; they also make perfect since working a 1-on-1, no stipluations barely any shred of a gimmick, and I can't say "I don't like him; can't wait to kick his ass" is a reasonable storyline. It works for them though because the only other company to work like that was Pride. In WWE though it wouldn't make sense because it's kayfabe wrestling. UFC, predetermined or not, isn't scripted. Wrestling is.

Why I am why posting this thread on TNA's section? It's easy, I think that TNA needs to be the promotion that do this first. They need to innovate, and this is the perfect thing for them, if RVD everytime fights on iMPACT! needs to have his title on the line, then the title and his reign will get more important.

TNA didn't do it first. Like I said in the beginning, the first wrestling was held monthly wherein the champion defended his title always. That is because, like I addressed, it wasn't held daily. In TNA's defense, it is weekly but still that is still a bit soon for a title defense. Not enough time to focus on rivalries, storyline, credible booking, and of course credible gimmicks. In the days of off-and-on wrestling, there was no real storyline. But you need that for television.

Just think about it, if you are champion is able to defeat 5 different wrestlers within two or two months he is not more important than someone that beats a guy one time and loses the championship three months later?

The belt doesn't lose its importance if it isn't defended. Neither does the champ lose credibility if he doesn't have the hardware on the line. That belt, as you said already, is a prop. It is used pretty much as a stipulation. Would you want to see nothing but No DQ matches or Special Guest Referees? No you will get bored of it. The same with the title being on the line every night.

Just my two cents, what's your opinion on this matter? Should TNA do this? And should WWE copy this idea? (or vice-versa...)

1. I said my piece about copying a while ago. I don't like TNA copying off of WWE. They need to focus more on being their own company. They've been under many fan's skeptical microscope as of late over taking WWE's ideas and rehashing them. As for WWE, well never should WWE "copy" off of TNA either. I could smell a lawsuit.

2. Neither should do it, because this is scripted television, not the old monthly "now and then" stars. Don't get me wrong- you're idea was interesting to me. I just can't agree.

 

[Caitiff]

Ok your only missing one big thing. Why the hell would Wwe have ppv's then? Hey lets put the Wwe title on the line on raw every week so people won't have to order ppv's. Your idea makes no sense because you can't compare fake sports to real ones. How would you build fueds if every week the champion is defending his title against someone else. Also don't say well the champ shouldn't wrestle each week because parents pay money for their kids to see John Cena wrestle. No offense dude but this is a dumb idea.

I think you're missing the original point of what he's trying to say.

(I can't believe that I'm about to put this up in a positive light.)

In WCW, Hulk Hogan hardly ever wrestled on Nitro. His matches were put on pay per views. And, the "big fight" feel of those matches is part of what always made Hogan's matches important. If you watch WWE On Demand, you'll actually see a lot of times where the announcers just made it seem like a big deal that "The World Champion Hulk Hogan is here, tonight!" And, it worked. And, most of those times, he just cut a promo.

What does that mean for John Cena? Well, since that's the example you mentioned, I'll explain. "Parents pay so their kids can see Cena wrestle." You're right. They do. They pay $50 a month to see it on pay per view. They pay for the tickets to the live shows. And, they pay for the merchandise. Whether you're missing this, or just ignoring it, I don't know, but you've left out dark main events. Just because Cena doesn't have a match on the televised show doesn't mean that he can't have a match for the live crowd.

There's no reason, at all, that the champion has to have a match on Raw or Smackdown every single week. Sure, the champ can make an appearance, cut a promo, or do commentary. Hell, he can even do a run-in that turns into a fight, that the next pay-per-view is based on.

Lately, this has actually been done, to fairly good effect, with Sheamus and Jack Swagger. You make the title seem more important when the point of the show is to get an opportunity to take the title than if the champion is only involved in non-title matches. And, when the title means more, the person who holds it means more. And, when the person who holds it means more, the person who takes it from him means more. It helps the entire product if the titles are more important. After all, doesn't almost every wrestler, at least in the storyline, want to be champion?

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I think that it's important for a champion to be a very visual part of the company. Even if the champ doesn't wrestle a match, his presence needs to be seen and felt with promos at least. Non-title matches can and have been used as a means of potentially building a feud up and make whomever the champ is facing look like a strong, worthy opponent.

In the WWE, Jack Swagger hasn't come across like some ultra dominant champion. He's lost a few non-title matches as World Heavyweight Champion, yet he's still looked strong in defeat while his opponents have looked good and strong in victory. For a while, it made us all wonder if the WWE was going to have Swagger drop his title to Randy Orton at the Extreme Rules ppv.

Back in the old days, Ric Flair lost a lot of non-title matches when he was NWA World Champion. It served to intensify his feud against whomever it was that defeated him and the audience would see that this person was a worthy challenger. Having title matches too frequently would get old fast, particularly in TNA.

 

[Dead-Angel]

i think the idea that every match champion has to defend title is sound awful i mean come on so it means the guy wins title the he defends it like 10 times in a row and he gets 10 victories in the row too wtf is that even a champion have to lose sometime but dont need to lose the title

 

[Ferreira]

Of course, when he loses, he loses the belt. Just like in UFC, when you are the champion you are the best at your weight division, of course there are no 'weight' limits on WWE or TNA, but I think you understand what I'm saying.

If you are the World Champion it means you are the best wrestler on the company, when you lose a match and you are world champion you don't deserve to be it, because if someone beats you it means they are better than you, it doesn't matter if they do it cheating or something else, they beat you, if they were smart enough (kayfabe) to cheat to win, well they deserve to be the champion.

What I also meant by this thread is that they shouldn't use the champions as often as they do on free TV on single matches, I guess John Cena has already fought with every single top star on the WWE roster, if he was treated like a real world champion he would only had fought with half of them.

Use them on live shows of course as dark main-events, that's all, make them cut a promo, or defend their titles only on PPVs or major TV shows and it would make them look impressive if they can defend their titles for 3/4/5 months in a row.

 

[wtfhappened]

Interesting idea but if you want it to work you could only have the champ wrestle ever once and a while or in a place where he couldn't lose the title (normal tag match, etc.). If you're going for the UFC approach you have to take into consideration that the champ doesn't usually fight every week. Same with boxing. The champ has a title match, afterwords doesn't fight for months while they build up the rematch/next contender.

When you place the champ in this situation in pro wrestling you'd either have to drop feuds completely or have him wrestle the same guy all the time. Having him wrestle less frequently (maybe just PPVs) would still allow them to build up the match, eliminate the non-title match and hopefully draw more money for the PPV. Maybe more people would want to watch if it's the only time they could see the title change hands.

 

[Da Prophet]

Matchs with Champions with the title match not on the line are a great way to put over talent without the Champion losing the title.It shows that the wrestler can hang with the big guys but the Champion dosen't lose the Championship.Having the title on the line every week would be stupid.Vince would lose PPV buys and money to.So having the title on the line every time isn't a smart idea.

 

[RKGO2SLEEP]

the biggest thing you are forgetting OP.
UFC doesnt do weekly shows like WWE, they just do PPV's, so we say oh yeah they always fight they always defend, when the fight every PPV, so WWE is exactly the same, every PPV the champion fights and the champion defends.
there are too many factors that would make your idea impossible, after a certain point, random defenses actually devalue a title because title matches become more casual occurences and arent as big, cuz its like WOAH HE LOST THE TITLE. oh well he will get another shot at it for 4 straight weeks now.

 

[mikeyboy]

i agree with mikeytot,putting the title on the line every time the champ fights kinda takes the excitment out of the ppv's, defending it on tv occasionally is ok but every match is a little much. as far as your ufc comparison, those guys only fight like once a month so it makes a little more sense.