Should the world titles be defended every ppv?

[Sora/roxas]

So we all know the with all the WWE ppvs the world titles are defended every one. My question is, do you perfer this or would you perfer every other on or so?
Everyone
pros-More fueds, more matches on the card, and ppvs are more of a draw with world title matches

cons- shorter fueds, causes some fueds to be thrown together without too much thought just to make a ppv macth

Every other
pros-longer fueds, the title matches mean more, and the more time in between title defenses would most likely mean longer title reigns

cons-Less ppv matches, ppvs might mean a little less.

I personally think they should be defend every other one for the reasons i listed. thoughts?

 

[Dragon310]

I disagree. WWE needs to defend the titles every ppv because they have one every month. What they need to do is to reduce the number of ppvs they have every year. This subject wa discussed a while ago in another thread. By lowering the number pf ppvs the title matches will get better because the storylines will have more depth if they have time to build it up.

 

[hatehabsforever]

I believe that regardless of which PPV is in question, when it is occurring, its location, or any other variable which could be discussed or debated, both the WWE Championship and the World Heavyweight Championship (or a Unified Championship if the titles get amalgamated) absolutely have to be contested and defended on every PPV. These should be treated as the pinnacle of the company, what all of the combatants are striving to achieve. Having a PPV without a major title being defended would be like playing a complete MLB season, but skipping the World Series.

They do not necessarily have to be the final event of the evening, although one of them usually should be. But, for example, having Kane/Undertaker conclude the HIAC would have been the appropriate way to end this PPV, even if Kane wasn't the current champion. But you have two have the major titles defended on every PPV.

No need to defend all of the secondary titles on every PPV. Some of them should be defended on any given PPV, and there shouldn't be any title that goes uncontested for consecutive PPV's. But the big two have to appear on every PPV, otherwise their significance is diminished and their value cheapened.

 

[The Brain]

I don’t think it’s necessary for the titles to be defended at every ppv. Take a look at the early SummerSlam events. Three out of the first four had the world champion in a tag match instead of a title match. Those main events were very much anticipated. The problem isn’t so much the amount of ppvs it’s that we get too many title matches for free on tv. If not a title match a big match involving the champion and his number one contender. In 1988 The Mega Powers vs. The Mega Bucks was a HUGE main event for a ppv. Nowadays this match would be done on the Raw prior to the ppv the further hype Savage vs. Andre and Hogan vs. Dibiase or vice versa. The feud started when Andre and Dibiase attacked Savage during an interview in early July. None of these guys ever crossed paths again until SummerSlam at the end of August. The entire angle was hyped through interviews. The fans couldn’t wait for them to finally meet up. If any of them matched up before the ppv the match would not have been as anticipated. I’m all for giving the fans what they want, but if you give them what they want too often they won’t appreciate it. If I randomly take my son out for ice cream after school every couple weeks it’s a special treat. If I did it every day it wouldn’t have any meaning. If properly booked a title match is not a necessity at every ppv.

 

[mikeyboy]

Yes , but i think they should stop defending the belts on Raw and Smackdown and only have title match at the ppv's, it would make them mean more imo.

 

[hatehabsforever]

Yes , but i think they should stop defending the belts on Raw and Smackdown and only have title match at the ppv's, it would make them mean more imo.

The thing is, though, the title defences on RAW and Smackdown are pretty meaningless. When was the last time that one of the two major titles changed hands on free TV, when a suspension for a Wellness Violation or an injury was not involved? I don't know the answer, but I would imagine you'd have to go back quite a ways to find the answer. I think they should continue to have the titles defended on RAW and SD, and they should, very occasionally, have a title change occur there, just to keep the fans guessing.

But you have to have the major titles appear on every PPV. I don't care if that wasn't the case years ago, that's irrelevant. If the title is not deemed important enough to appear on a PPV show, and the title holder is not a man enough to be a fighting champion and defend it on every PPV, it cheapens the value of the title. If the WWE brass don't care enough about a major belt to feature it prominently on a PPV, why should we the fans care about it?

 

[Stephen11]

I think that every World title should be defended at a PPV, the Tag Titles and at least one of the Mid-card titles (US/IC). If they aren't defended at the PPV then they should be defended at least every month or so in an actual (non-squash) match. The tag titles need more of a value, I honestly think they should be disposed of if they continue to be under-valued but I definitely think they should defend tag titles everyy PPV to increase value.

 

[ilapierre]

No absolutely not. World Titles do not need to be defended each pay per view. There are way too many pay per views to begin with. There should be six pay per views a year not 12. If there were six pay per views a year, i'd say the titles should be defended each show. But with 12 a year, i'd say there should be a two month build up at the least for a World Title defense. As well, champions defend their titles too much on tv and they are expected to lose those titles from time to time. World titles need to be held onto longer so they regain their prestige and without that prestige the guys wearing them cannot be taken as seriously as past champs.

The focus should be more on feuds than on the World Title anyway. PPVs should be headlined from time to time by matchups that aren't for any title. Wrestling is not all about world titles. Just look at Shawn Michaeals and the Undertaker. Two of the best ever but both didn't have that much world title time. Taker vs Michaels at Wrestlemania is an example of the kind of feud and buildup that has eclipsed any world title match in the recent past. Michaels/Flair is another one. These matchups/feuds were cared about by fans way more than anything John Cena or Triple H has done in the past few years in the world title scene. Feuds between two up and coming non champions (or two legends or older guys now beyond the world title scene) should be highlighted as the main event of every second pay per view. One month is just not enough time to get all that interested in a World Title defence. There needs to be time for the fan to grasp the feud, to get pumped for the match date just like fans do in boxing or mma. In my opinion, having a champion defend the belt every pay per view cheapens the value of the title. Just imagine if Brock Lesnar defended the UFC championship every month on pay per view and on TV four weeks a month. His reign wouldn't mean as much and UFC/MMA wouldn't remain as popular as it has. Imagine if Hulk Hogan defended his World Title back in 1984 to 1988 every week and once a month on pay per view. He'd have done as much in 12 months as he did in 6 years before losing the World Title to the Ultimate Warrior.

It's pretty obvious after watching wrestling over the past decade that giving the World Title scene so much exposure on TV and on pay per views cheapens the championship value of the champion and ultimately cheapens the companys' product.

 

[YEDemon]

The thing is, though, the title defences on RAW and Smackdown are pretty meaningless. When was the last time that one of the two major titles changed hands on free TV, when a suspension for a Wellness Violation or an injury was not involved? I don't know the answer, but I would imagine you'd have to go back quite a ways to find the answer.

Off the top of my head, Jack Swagger won the WHC from Jericho on the Smackdown after Wrestlemania earlier this year. I don't think six and a half months is that bad. And theoretically, there could be a more recent one, though I don't remember there being one. That was just the one that popped into my head.

 

[mrhexum]

i agree with not defending the world titles on tv...but....for as long as i can remember (and sheamus tried to use this recently)....the title is to be defended every 30 days....so do we really have a choice?

 

[BuckshotBrian13]

I think that every World title should be defended at a PPV, the Tag Titles and at least one of the Mid-card titles (US/IC). If they aren't defended at the PPV then they should be defended at least every month or so in an actual (non-squash) match. The tag titles need more of a value, I honestly think they should be disposed of if they continue to be under-valued but I definitely think they should defend tag titles everyy PPV to increase value.

Agreed seeing Miz hold on to the US title for about 4 months w/o a title defense and then people said it added prestige...defending it adds prestige, not hold onto it not defending it. The titles are being dimished.

Off the top of my head, Jack Swagger won the WHC from Jericho on the Smackdown after Wrestlemania earlier this year. I don't think six and a half months is that bad. And theoretically, there could be a more recent one, though I don't remember there being one. That was just the one that popped into my head.

There was no suspension yet and no injury, but it was a MITB cash in. Then Swagger went on to have a meaningless reign. So him winning it was a waste. Besides that, when was the last time a title switched hands without MITB, injury, or suspension?

On the topic at hand, they hold too many ppvs at it is. You be better off holding 6-8 ppvs a year to give the title more meaning. Look at Orton and Shameus. They had 2 weeks between the 6pack challenge at NoC then come HIAC 2 weeks later...no build-up. Now we got Barrett v. Orton and that's to continue the Nexus/Cena storyline. They would've been better off having Miz cash in his MITB and start a feud between him and Orton. Then have a 3-way bragging rights war between SD, Raw, and Nexus.

 

[Honkey_Kong]

The world titles aren't really what they used to be. It used to be the face of the company was the champ (or challenging the heel champ). Now, the prestige of the top titles isn't what it used to be, it's merely a prop to get somebody over as a legit main eventer. Look at it like this, does John Cena need the world title to be looked at as a top tier guy? What about HHH or Taker? So with that being said, it doesn't matter if there is a prestige in defending the titles heavily as they're not really selling points for PPVs.

So it really doesn't matter if they're defended every ppv or every other. Actually, I'd rather Smackdown and Raw rotate PPVs and do one from each brand every other month. That would allow of more time to develop PPVs and better utilize the wrestlers on their respective brands.

 

[GameOver]

Saying it for years. All titles should be defended on almost every PPV especially the big 4, not just Night of Champions.

The two world titles should be defended every PPV period,
Tag Titles same as World titles
and either the US/IC Title unless they unify those too.
Womens titles doesn't really matter

randomly you can have title defenses on TV aswell

but atleast having them on every PPV gives people something to look forward to instead of gimmick feuds all the time with occasional title matches

They have more then enough time to build up a fued/s then have it run for 3 PPV's or so.

 

[Ferbian]

Of course the world titles should be defended at every Pay Per View. They're the main focus of every Pay Per View because they're build from the very start from Pay Per View to Pay Per View.

If they don't defend the world titles at every Pay Per View you're guaranteed to have less buys, because I'm sure while some care about the whole card, there's certainly some out there that only cares about the world title matches. And that's how it should be, the world title matches are the main events for a reason.

Also, you try to say that it's a consequence for defending the titles at every Pay Per View that the feuds will be shorter. Well that can't be true, because last time I checked WWE just carries the feud into another following Pay Per View, thus allowing the feud to carry on for longer.

Yes, the world titles should be defended at every Pay Per View.

 

[JDavis328]

It is a great idea if used right. See you dont really need every month a title match but if there is not a title match you have to have a high profile match that can bring as much excitement and intrigue as a title match would. At times they have in many companies they have done tag matchs with the champ not defending his belt but its a huge profile match. Thats really important. Also if the champ is not involved in the biggest match,there has to be a reasonable explanation why. So yes they can do it but they would have to really kick it up creativly.

 

[The Aussie Invasion]

I think that if you wanna make money, you have to defend the titles every PPV. I really only get PPV's for the World Title matches, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Sure you don't have long to build a fued, but if a Champion loses his title at the previous PPV, a fued is already set for the next PPV. And really defending the strap on SmackDown or RAW is nothing special, the matches mostly end as a squash, by DQ, Count-Out or there's a No-Contest sure some PPV defenses end with a DQ or count-out but it adds excitment (or disapppointment). But bottom line, YES the belt NEEDS to be defended every PPV.

And too answer the question someone asked about when was the last time the strap changed hands on a weekly show, to the best of my memory it was in '06 when Edge beat Cena and RVD in a Triple-threat on RAW.

 

[hunterXhunter21]

I like many think they need to be defended every PPV with one exception being the Feb. PPV. I think the Raw or Smackdown after the Rumble we should know the main event for WM. Have them in a 6 way tag or maybe a champions vs challengers match but don't defend the title. I think if they can keep these wrestlers from a one on one match till WM people will be foaming to see them get it on at last.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The title does not need to be defended but The Champion needs to wrestle on every PPV... WWE rarely has main events now like the past where the Champ would team with someone... Those are perfectly acceptable ways to headline a PPV but not have the belt at stake... Hogan and Beefcake, Hogan and Savage, Warrior and Hogan...

In the past as well the champion was involved in gimmick matches, at Survivor Series the Champ had a team too... Before the title shot prize, Hogan won the Rumble as Champion twice...

 

[Brahma Bull]

to answer a question posted in this thread, the last title that changed hands on regular tv was in november 2008 when jericho beat batista in a steel cage match. it had no run ins, no injury or suspension or mitb, and jericho actually won the match cleanly. sure he used a steel ring to win, but it was a steel cage match so weapons where allowed.

onto the question at hand. the title should absolutely be contested at every ppv. to not due so cheapens the ppv. not to mention many good fueds last for a few ppvs. and some great fueds have even involved a lower belt (jericho vs rey rey for the intercontinental title for instance). i dont really look at who won the belt each ppv so much as who comes out on top after the fued. having them compete at 3 ppvs for the title hightens the fued, even if the belt changes hands each time.

the only thing ill agree with is that ppvs are sometimes way to close together. there was only a 2 week build to hiac. that is no time whatsoever to build up a good fued/ get people interested in the ppv. im not saying cut down too many, but at least a month build is needed for each ppv. if you just get rid of 2, you can still have the 2 most anticipated ppvs (royal rumble and wrestlemania) get their deserving long buildup. i know ppvs create cash, but having them too close to each other does nothing in getting people excited for the matches that come.

 

[Sicc Nick]

I think that the system they had with the Undisputed/Unified World Championship was perfect in this kind of situation.

In 2002, the brand split happened. Now although RAW and SD! superstars appeared in all of the PPV's every single month, it was in 2003 where they finally got smart and decided to rotate PPV's. RAW getting 4, SD! getting 4, and then 4 joint PPV's.

With that system, you defended the title at every PPV, but because there was only one World Title, they made it where the title matches were fresh and interesting each time, because first a RAW guy would go after it, and then a SD! guy. And because of this, it had a lot of prestige because although it was defended way too much as it was defended twice a month usually, it always gave the holder a lot of air time as he was the only person to be on both shows.

Now the brand split has been tarnished and some people just appear on the opposite brand, and with two titles, it's just your same old crap leading up to each PPV every single month. How many times have we seen Orton, Sheamus, Cena, and Barrett talk, fight, or obsess over the world title? How many times has Kane and Undertaker fought for the World Title now?

If they unify the World Titles, they can finally bring prestige back to the belt, they can rotate PPV's, and they can have a ton of title defenses like they do now, all over again, while joint PPV's such as Bragging Rights and Royal Rumble, don't really need a World Title defense 'cause there is already a gimmick to fill. (Same with Money In The Bank)

 

[ilapierre]

I would watch a ppv if i knew two legends were gonna fight in the main event. But i'm not gonna buy a ppv where John Cena or Edge is defending the title against Sheamus or Randy Orton. Sorry. Seen it a million times and the feuds and matches aren't all that good either.
Short sighted thinking would lead many of you with the 'gimme gimmes' to want a main event World championship match every pay per view. I'm all for title defences at least once every 30 days but i don't believe the defence has to always happen on ppv. I've seen almost unanimous support for world title defences on every ppv because without such a match the ppv buyrates would be awful. But I think there are a lot of people like me out there who don't watch many ppvs because they are always the same old guys wrestling in the main event for the world title. There's too much focus on the champion and too little focus on the up and coming guys that will soon be in the world title scene. There's way too much focus on having a title and still too little focus on straight out wrestling because you hate your opponent and want to climb past him up the ranks.

I argue that ppv buyrates are as low as they are now because the world title is defended every pay per view. Fans don't really care if the title changes hands because it is defended too much and its quite predictable when a title change is about to occur. PPV buyrates would be higher if there were better non title feuds, they would be better if wrestling fans had to wait two or three months to finally see the anticipated title match. Sure, the ppvs where the title wasn't being defended might sell less than they do now but I think there would be a bigger upside on the pay per views where the title is being defended. The Intercontinental title had so much prestige when the focus was to build up future world champions and wasn't always about the world title. But that prestige is gone because too many people win the world title, its predictable who is going to rise up the ranks and win it within a year or two, and there's just too much world title focus. Raw and Smackdown really should be the same brand and there is one World Title too many. I say one world title, defended every second or third pay per view, and cut half of WWE's roster because most of the roster sucks balls. Let those ass wipes go stink up TNA.

 

[MMK]

If you're going to have a pay per view every single month, or in some cases, 2 pay per views a month, then you really don't have a choice but to have the WWE and World Titles on the line because there's not enough time to build up an interesting enough feud on it's own without the title at stake.

The real question that needs to be addressed, is should they be having a pay per view every month? I for one don't think they should. And they especially shouldn't have two ppv's a month. Bragging Rights and Survivor Series could easily be combined into one event by just having a Survivor Series style match featuring a team RAW vs team Smackdown. Or you could just rename Survivor Series "Bragging Rights".

Having so many ppv's means you don't have enough time to build up feuds and therefore the titles have to be added to these matches to give them a more meaningful feel.

 

[johnbragg]

As a rule, yes, but not an ironclad rule.

If an angle is hot enough, if a storyline is important enough, then the World or WWE champion can do something else on the PPV instead of defend his title. I don't remember whether the current champion defended at SummerSlam, but it would have been ok if he had joined Team WWE vs Team Nexus instead.

A NWO vs Team WCW match could have taken precedence over a Hogan WCW title defense.

Someone mentioned MegaPowers (Hogan and Savage) vs MegaMoney (Dibiase and Andre) at one of the early Wrestlemanias.

I guess I would only allow an exception for huge faction-related storylines where a champion could say that the faction issue was more important than the title defense for this PPV.

Otherwise, if you're asking for $40-$50-soon-to-be-more, then you'd better have the crown jewels of WWE on the line.

 

[airvar]

You have two world title's, Why not defend an average of One a PPV?

Only defend them both at one of the "big " PPV's (Royal Rumble, Summer Slam, Survivor Series, Wrestlemaina, and Night of Champions because its the PPV's Gimmick)

The Rest of the PPV's either have the WWE championship defended, or the World Heavyweight Championship defended but not both.. You can have a non-title match, or a #1 contedor's match, or any other form of match for the other brand, but You just don't need both titles on the line at every PPV. Plus it allows longer build up for the World Title Match's, extending feuds and preventing amazing feuds from getting stale too quickly.

 

[Funkydr79]

I really find it ironic that people are using the logic "Televised Title matches don't count because they're only squash matches and the title never changes hands."

That statement epitomizes the problem with the Championships. If it "means nothing" to have the match in the first place then you are by definition cheapening the title. EVERY title match should mean something. It should be viewed as two guys vying for the right to be called the best.

Without rehashing the "too many PPVs" topic, You absolutely do NOT need to have every championship defended on every PPV. You could have each championship defended every other PPV alternating between WWE and WHC title matches. OR you don't need title matches at all. If the creative team is doing their job than the booking should create the PPV buys not the Title match itself.

I know people are sick about comparisons to MMA, but let's be realistic, they have whole PPV cards without a Title Match. How do the do that? By booking solid matches and creating drama through interviews that make me want to see these two guys fight!