Rematch Clauses

[oilergk]

I searched the forums and couldn't find this, so sorry if it has been done before. Anyway, I've been watching wrestling for years now and the rematch clause matches are always foregone conclusions. I understand that it's to keep a feud going a little longer, as well as give the new champion a little momentum, but the new champion wins every time. There is really no surprise whatsoever. Do you like how the rematch clause is set up? Would you do anything differently? Would it be more meaningful to forget about it and have the new champion engage in a meaningful feud with a new contender?

 

[WrestlingFan96]

Rematch clause is just for the loser in the match to show that he will try his best to get his title back. It works well in some cases. Sometimes it is very predictable. If you are referring to Show & Sheamus, I can see something with Ziggler happening, hopefully.

 

[ROFLC0P7ER]

I'm pretty sure from a pro wrestling standpoint it's just a built-in way to keep a feud going. Pro wrestling has rules that come and go, or are sometimes ignored. Like managers licenses for example. Or how the ref yells at tag team partners who get into the ring to break up a count and tells them to get out, but the ref never disqualifies anyone for it. Or the no closed fists strikes rule that seems to have gone away seeing as how Big Show's finish is a punch to the face.

From a sports standpoint, I know that in boxing and MMA close or controversial decisions are often followed by a rematch. A couple off the top of my head being Shogun vs Machida, in which a lot of people thought Shogun won the fight after five rounds even though he lost the decision. So there was a rematch. Also there was Sonnen vs Silva, in which the most dominant fighter in the UFC and possibly the best pound for pound fighter in the world got thoroughly beaten for five rounds before he miraculously submitted Sonnen in the fifth round. So there was a rematch.

I think the whole clause being built into a contract is silly, but in pro wrestling where championship matches are usually longer and more back-and-forth it makes sense to me that there are rematches just to prove who is better.

 

[HBKistheHOF]

The "Rematch Clause" is like every other stipulation or tool WWE has created to effect it's booking, they created it at one time or another to add intrigue or get them out of a jam & now it just exists whenever they choose to acknowlege it.

Just like every other "Rule" created by WWE, sometimes it works very well, sometimes they forget or don't care that they created it, & sometimes it just fails. Sometimes it can be useful in furthering a feud or adding the old competitor to the mix for a triple threat & sometimes a performer just "doesn't envoke their rematch clause" or they have the match on a TV taping or live event just to have it & move on. So it can really go both ways.

If I'm not mistaken Alberto & Cena actually traded the WWE title back & forth last year in a rematch clause match, even though I think Alberto's rematch was technically inside the Cell with Punk (who would have technically been envoking his rematch from Summerslam).

So it can happen sometimes but I get your point, it has become predictable. And while I somewhat agree, I can see why they keep the rule & i think it adds a slight shade of true competition & credibility to champions & the belt. So just like the foot on the ropes rule, it will get predictable & put on the backburner for awhile until they think of a reason they need to use it or some way to work it into storylines.

 

[One to Remember]

id say it would make a good addition to the permanent rules of wrestling. at first i exclusively viewed it as a way to prolong a feud but now i think of it as a way to put speculation and lingering doubts to rest. its possible that the victory might had been an upset, a fluke, any number of things. the rematch clause allows us to get a type of finality on that while giving creative time to breath, building up excitement from the crowd over anytime/anywhere type matches, and allowing something that has holes in it lead to storylines where loop holes are exploited. Wrestlers from the past could invoke the rule to allow them to get a quick insert into a storyline. Like what if one of the guys who beat Big Show for the WWF title claimed to have rights under the clause? What if Hogan claimed to because of his loss to Big Show in WCW? It opens up a Pandora's box which in wrestling can sometimes be great.

 

[HBsam31]

I am fine with the rematch clause, but what I would like to see from time to time is for the rematch to take place on Raw or Smackdown so that a new opponent can emerge for the PPV. Like with Sheamus and ADR, I think 3 ppvs was to many times to see that match. I would like to see ppv number one contenders change more frequently. I agree with the guy that said that while the clause is used to prolong the feud, it is also used to show that the win wasn't a fluke. I think that part of it is good, but not three ppvs in a row.