Rankings

[Aotearoa (Bushwacker)]

So many times wrestlers show up after a hiatus and insert themselves into the title picture. Rock announced he would challenge whoever was the title holder at the Rumble. He hadn't earned it, he hadn't had a series of wins, he just announced it. There are numerous other examples.
I realise it is scripted but could you imagine in a sport like boxing if a boxer just announced out of the blue he was challenging for the title when he was not even ranked as a contender.
It doesn't matter how many times a wrestler wins or loses they can just announce they are challenging.

So the question is should there be some sort of ranking system as in boxing?
Would a ranking system work? Why or why not?
Should there be a formal number one contender and should it be earned based on their winning streak?
Should wins and losses matter?
Should streaks matter?

 

[George Steele's Barber]

The Rock had one of the biggest careers in wrestling history and was coming off a clean victory over the biggest name currently in the business in the main event at the biggest WM in history. A title shot was not exactly a stretch for The Rock at that point. It certainly beats a Battle Royal or Beat the Clock challenges for a title shot.

What's the point of a ranking system in an illegitimate sport? Why would you limit your ability to put out the matches that work at the right time? Why aren't you complaining about Jack Swagger's title shot?

Rankings are cute but this isn't college football. Most people don't want to follow pro wrestling statistics and wins and losses. They just want the best guys competing to the best of their ability. The closest thing that seems to work in pro wrestling to what you are describing is the Bound For Series and I imagine that will start to get old pretty soon.

 

[keehlnate]

Yeah? If not winning against the Goldenboy of WWE in the grandest stage of them all in the Biggest Wrestlemania Main-event ever created (well they hyped it as that) then how else can you earn a title shot?

Fact is The Rock beat John Cena at Wrestlemania 28 and that is more than enough for him to have a championship match. It is not just like he announced it, he earned it. That's what the script says though.

As for rankings, I guess they should make one just to have a proper and official look on who's at the top and the next in line for a title shot.

 

[Aotearoa (Bushwacker)]

The Rock had one of the biggest careers in wrestling history and was coming off a clean victory over the biggest name currently in the business in the main event at the biggest WM in history. A title shot was not exactly a stretch for The Rock at that point. It certainly beats a Battle Royal or Beat the Clock challenges for a title shot.

He wasn't coming off a victory, there was like 10 months in between his WM victory and his Rumble appearance. It's not like they were back to back ppv's. What difference does it make if he was a former champion or had one of the biggest careers. There are lot's of wrestlers with great careers. Does that give them all the right to just automatically challenge for a title?

What's the point of a ranking system in an illegitimate sport? I simply asked is it a good idea not that they definitely should have one. Also creative could get creative and still have a ranking system. It's a fake sport, they could have a fake ranking system.

Why would you limit your ability to put out the matches that work at the right time? How would this limit any ability. Creative can surely work this into storylines with some fore thought.

Why aren't you complaining about Jack Swagger's title shot? I wasn't aware that I was complaining about anything. Why would I need to complain about Jack Swaggers title shot. Incidentally Jack Swagger is the number one contender so that fits.

Rankings are cute but this isn't college football. Most people don't want to follow pro wrestling statistics and wins and losses. They just want the best guys competing to the best of their ability. The closest thing that seems to work in pro wrestling to what you are describing is the Bound For Series and I imagine that will start to get old pretty soon
If stats are unimportant and people just want the two best guys competing against each other then why have a title at all?

 

[Aotearoa (Bushwacker)]

Yeah? If not winning against the Goldenboy of WWE in the grandest stage of them all in the Biggest Wrestlemania Main-event ever created (well they hyped it as that) then how else can you earn a title shot? I would guess by beating everybody else ranked higher than you and being considered the number one contender as in boxing for example. I am not advocating that it is a good idea I was just posing the question.

Fact is The Rock beat John Cena at Wrestlemania 28 and that is more than enough for him to have a championship match. It is not just like he announced it, he earned it. That's what the script says though.I am not bashing Rock, I simply used that as an example. I am talking about wrestlers in general just showing up and announcing they are challenging for a title.

As for rankings, I guess they should make one just to have a proper and official look on who's at the top and the next in line for a title shot.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

As a whole, ranking systems don't work in wrestling. For one thing, wrestling isn't a "sport" in the same way as boxing & MMA is. I don't mean that in terms of that boxing & MMA aren't staged, but in how frequent they athletes compete. The VAST majority of pro wrestling champions defend their titles more than 1 to 3 times a year. It's easier to set up a ranking system and make it work when your champion fights a couple of matches in a year.

TNA tried to adopt a ranking system a few years back that was a flop. It essentially reduced title programs to 1 match feuds. The fans soon lost interest as there wasn't enough time to have a real program, so there was no reason for the fans to invest. As a result, RVD's title matches felt like throwaway matches and really made his run as champ in TNA underwhelming & lackluster.

ROH has had several various ranking systems over the years. They started out with a "Top Five Ranking" system in which wrestlers were ranked on their win-loss record in general as well a their win-loss record against other ranking wrestlers. The top ranked would have a #1 contender trophy he'd carry around and would defend like a title. This was eventually replaced by a more complex system with the Contender's Ring. It was a clusterfuck in which company officials submit rankings after each show. Wrestlers who appeared on more than 75% of the ballots were considered to be in the Contenders Ring, which earned them title shots for both the World and Pure Championships. In early 2005, ROH did away with this and did something in which wrestlers who wanted a title shot had to submit a "petition" to ROH officials. After receiving such a petition, ROH officials kept track of the petitioner's record, quality of opposition, respect shown towards the Code of Honor, and inherent skill. These factors determined who would receive a title shot. Despite the petition system, ROH officials retained the ability to determine number-one contenders. ROH the brought back the "Top Five Ranking" after Jim Cornette became ROH Commissioner in October 2005. Cornette and other ROH officials voted on the "Top 5" only during the first week of every month. Selection depended on won/lost record and quality of opposition that had a bit emphasis on the previous month. Then in July 2006, ROH dropped the concept again. The adopted another one called the Pack Six but it's to damn long & complicated to go into. They stopped doing it in late 2010.

You can't try to treat wrestling like it's a 100% legit sport. Everybody knows that it isn't, especially in this day and age. Wresling fans will suspend disbelief to a major degree but, by and large, the idea of a ranking system to determine is a waste of time. In ROH, just as in any other wrestling company, ultimately decided who wins, who loses, who advances and who doesn't. A ranking system in pro wrestling doesn't even qualify as window dressing. Everyone knows that upper management decides who the champ is, who they face and who ultimately comes out with the title. So the idea of going through some long, overly complicated ranking system has no realistic payoff.

 

[Aotearoa (Bushwacker)]

You put forward a very good and coherent argument. I like your style.
So if it is agreed that a ranking system would not work, is it still 'fair' or even logical that a wrestler should be able just announce that he is challenging for the title or should there be some type of formal system?

 

[ThePrawnCurry]

rankings would be nullified every time there is a draft

and what about long lay offs for injuries?


i cant see Mark Henry not being in the top 4 (after his Hall of Pain run)

imo Booker's Fave Five is of more import

 

[Jack-Hammer]

You put forward a very good and coherent argument. I like your style.
So if it is agreed that a ranking system would not work, is it still 'fair' or even logical that a wrestler should be able just announce that he is challenging for the title or should there be some type of formal system?

Fair has nothing to do with it. Never has and never will. Pro wrestling is a business like any other. The goal of a business is to generate revenue and wrestling businesses do that by putting wrestlers into positions the company brass thinks are best likely to generate money. Sometimes the WWE makes the right choices for those spots and sometimes they don't. Again, that's just like any other wrestling company or business in and of itself. You know why The Rock announced on Raw 1,000 that he'd challenge the WWE Champion for the title at the Royal Rumble? Because WWE knew that it would almost certainly make tons of money. Why was the title kept on CM Punk for so long? Because he made WWE lots of money, enough so that Vince McMahon was perfectly satisfied for Punk to keep the title for 14 months.

When it comes to logic, there are times when gaps in logic damage the product. When it comes to a wrestler declaring that he wants to be the #1 contender or to prove that he should be #1 contender, it's a different story. What a lot of fans care about the most is whether or not the person ultimately declared #1 contender is believable. For instance, if Sin Cara declared himself #1 contender for the World Heavyweight Championship, fans wouldn't buy into it right now because he's simply not booked strong enough. Sin Cara would need to be built up and proven over time as a potential strong challenger & serious threat to the reign of the current champion. Not only does that depend on how he's booked, but it also depends on the ability of the wrestler himself.

A lot of wrestlers like to blame company politics for why they never reached the level that they always felt they should be. You hear wrestlers bitch and moan about that all the time these days via the internet. If every wrestler who said he should have been a main eventer and World Champion actually was, then titles would change hands on a weekly basis and the position of main eventer and champion would mean less than nothing. Again, sometimes a company makes the right call and sometimes they don't. Also, there's the plain & simple fact that some wrestlers just simply aren't nearly as good as they believe themselves to be. Fans have to be invested in a wrestler to want to pay money to see him do his thing, especially if he's a World Champion. If said wrestler doesn't have the persona, charisma, personality and/or ability in the ring to make a fan care, then nothing else matters. Otherwise, guys like Matt Hardy and Shelton Benjamin would have won more singles World Championships than Ric Flair.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Should wins and losses matter?

That question always reminds me of how arbitrary and virtually meaningless rankings would be in pro wrestling. In this "sport," the determining factor in who gets what depends on the guy's power to draw, no matter what the results in the ring tell us. After all, in all other major sports, it's wins and losses that count. In wrestling, you can have a heel titleholder who either wins all his matches by cheating or loses them by disqualification/count-out, or various other methods that hang a loss on his record but allow him to keep his title. How could his ranking be adequately measured? If results in the ring were the determining factor, he might be the #14 ranked wrestler in the division in which he's the champion. What a mess!

Then, there is more than one title in WWE.....in fact, even more than one "world" championship. Who gets ranked.....and in which category? Does the Intercontinental division have it's own set of rankings, with it's own champion at the top of those rankings? Or is there only a set of rankings for a world title.....and then, which one is considered the "official" championship?

How about determining when a scheduled match is to be for the title or not? I've never understood why so many matches in which a champion engages are deemed non-title. I mean, what for?

Take the recent matches between U.S. champ Antonio Cesaro and Ryback. A few weeks ago, they fought in a non-title event and Ryback won. Why wasn't the title at stake? Okay, it wasn't. So, fast forward to this past Monday night when they fought again. Since Ryback won their last contest, why wasn't this one for the title? Ryback beat the U.S. champion twice and has no title to show for it.

This is what my rambling is leading to. One could say that Ryback has no interest in the U.S. title....and I'd ask: why not? You might point out that he's in competition for the World belt and doesn't value the U.S. belt..... and I'd still ask why he couldn't hold the U.S. title even as he goes for the big kahuna. If a ranking system existed, Ryback would presumably have been fighting Cesaro for the title this past week.....except he didn't, because no one gives a tin shit about that type of thing.

According to folks older than me, there used to be rankings in wrestling. I was told of one ad for a match that read: "Nikolai Volkoff is the ranked #1 challenger for Bruno Sammartino's championship" right before they fought.

What did that mean? Nothing, except that Volkoff was the guy Bruno was facing at Madison Square Garden in that month's feature match; therefore, he was the top rated contender. Regardless of what Volkoff did the next month in his matches, someone else was going to face Bruno at MSG; therefore, that guy became the #1 contender. And so it goes.

A ranking system would be a pain in the ass to compile and manage because the machinations of risk and reward are so illogical in pro wrestling.

 

[mojmass]

You actually talk like you believe pro wrestling is a sport it's more like a movie industry and it's based on being unfair and illegitimacy so isn't it obvious it will kill us to see an honest match and it will RUIN the BUSINESS. as if it hasn't already.

 

[King Patrick Star]

Great topic for discussion. First, let’s answer your questions.

So the question is should there be some sort of ranking system as in boxing?
Sort of.

Would a ranking system work? Why or why not?
Nes and Yo. Yes, because it would take away the questions “Who’s next??” and “Why is he next??” No, because it’s not a real sport.

Should there be a formal number one contender and should it be earned based on their winning streak?
There should be a formal number one contender and it should be earned based on their winning streak.

Should wins and losses matter?
Wins and loses should matter.

Should streaks matter?
Streaks should matter and not just at WrestleMania.

Now, topics like this always point me back to my idea of the WWE Elite 8.

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=126223

Just to sum it up really fast, it’s pretty much a ranking system based on fan voting. Top 8 get placed into a month long tournament to determine the number one contender for that month’s PPV. Numbers 9 – 16 are placed in a similar tournament for the # 1 contenders spot for the Mid-Card Championship, and # 17 through the bottom of the list are placed in a tournament for the Tag Titles. See the link for details.

So, in conclusion, a ranking system would work, if it’s not based on actual wins and losses and streaks and such. It would work if it was based on nothing but social media voting, much like everything else these days.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Guys, this isnt boxing, or tennis, there are no seedings like the NBA playoffs or March Madness, IT IS A SOAP OPERA!

Just like in prime time TV where shows have re occuring characters, characters that are not a part of the weekly landscape but who make limited appearances, usually for special storyline arcs or major plot changes. This is especially evident on crime dramas. Law & Order always had a couple of defense attorneys who made periodic appearances, people who represented a much tougher challenge than normal for the prosecuting DA. CSI had the Miniature Killer, the one villain they couldnt catch. Currently Criminal Minds has The Replicator, a serial killer they are tracking all over the country but who seems to be stalking the FBI team as well. Daytime soaps have always had them, recurring characters usually brought in once a year to advance the biggest storyline going on.

This is exactly what wrestling does. This was especially true back when there were multiple high profile companies in existance. Hall & Nash didnt quietly debut in WCW in 1996, working their way up the ladder of contention. Hulk Hogan didnt arrive two years earlier promising to win his way into title contention. Ric Flair's WCW Title belt was paraded all over WWE TV for a month before he ever appeared when he debuted as "The Real Worlds Champion". Once he arrived he immediately was main eventing vs Piper & Hogan.

These things are done to generate a buzz, an interest in the product that didnt exist before. You can argue that it may not seem fair to the guys already there, I would argue that by increasing interest in the product everyone benefits. A lot of guys got a great chance to be seen by fans who dont watch WWE weekly at last year's WrestleMania, a super event built almost entirely around two semi retired 45 year olds and an ex wrestler who made his success as a Hollywood actor. Take those guys off the show and watch the buy rates plummet.

Even without another major company, returning stars are pushed hard and fast. HBK got a monster push in 2002, as did Hogan & Flair. HBK & Flair stayed and contributed for several years, but even with Hogan WWE got what it wanted, better numbers, more money, which they got by pushing him to the top ASAP when he returned.

Besides, even if there was a contrived Top 10 List of title contenders, WWE would just manipulate it to put the talent they want in the matches they want. WCW did this years ago, even using it as a plot device when Terry Funk returned and immediately wanted a title shot, only to be told he had to work his way up the Top 10, it wouldnt be right for him to get a title shot over ranked contenders when he just came back. Funk of course responded by pile driving Ric Flair through a wooden table (wrestling's first big "table spot"), which of course helped him get that title shot a lot quicker.

 

[Lockard23]

If this was a real sport, I would base contendership on win-loss records alone. However, only full time members of the roster would be contenders, so guys like Rock would never get a shot at the title unless it was a special attraction match. Champions would be allowed to give special challenges to others if they so want, but only if the current number one contender allows it as well or already got his shot and lost.