The return of the Smark Killers - topic 2 - "hot potato title"

[Mighty NorCal]

As was promised last year, I have returned, and so has my series of threads. This here is a place were we pick apart dumb fucking things that people say and or talk about when reffering to pro wrestling. Our last topic was "cheap heat"

Now onto hot potato title. Whats funny, is oftentimes, you will get the SAME imbeciles who whine and cry about "old stale" title reigns saying this stupid ass term, but I digress. People generally whine about a "hot potato title" when a championship changes hands somewhat regularly. Which, if we look at what pro wrestling is REALLY supposed to be, within the show, is total idiocy.

Wrestling is supposed to be "real". Yes, clearly it isnt, and we are ALL SO COOL BECUASE WE KNOWS ITS NOT REALZ HAHA but, yea, within the framework of the fantasy of the show, yea, its supposed to be portrayed as "real". So, I ask you, how often in real sports does a champion successfully defend their title? Furthermore, if the champions defended their titles with a frequency of once a month, how often would they then keep them? Every major sport, even the ones with individual fighting titles, such as Boxing and MMA, people very rarely hold onto their titles past 5 to 6 defenses. Now, think if these defenses came monthly, or multiple ones within a month. There is just no WAY a champ doesnt drop the title if they are defending it with such frequency. Sure, Brock Lesnar may hold the title for over a year in the UFC, but thats about 3 title defenses. 3 title defenses is 6 fucking weeks in the WWE.

Football, basketball, ANY major sport, how often to we see Champs defend successfully? Barely ever. My point with all this is, if we want Wrestling to be portayed as legit, as "real" then there is NO problem with a title changing hands often. It portrays the title is hotly contested, and strong feild of competitors do that contesting.

People like to say it makes the belt less prestigous, and I would really have to disagree. Why would it be less prestigous if everyone wants it, and everyone is fighting for it? If people are going the extra mile to win it, regularly?

Regular title changes keeps us on our toes as viewers. The last year or so of PPV has been fucking epic, because every show is a must see. You remember the days when a title defense was ALL but assured on some shows dont you? Are you REALLY trying to tell me that things are less exciting now, then they were then? Of course they arent. Every show is fun, every show is exciting, every show as intrigue.

Just like real sports. Just like its supposed to be.

 

[Suneeboy]

Good thread here. I'd like to weigh in.

As was promised last year, I have returned, and so has my series of threads. This here is a place were we pick apart dumb fucking things that people say and or talk about when reffering to pro wrestling. Our last topic was "cheap heat"

Now onto hot potato title. Whats funny, is oftentimes, you will get the SAME imbeciles who whine and cry about "old stale" title reigns saying this stupid ass term, but I digress. People generally whine about a "hot potato title" when a championship changes hands somewhat regularly. Which, if we look at what pro wrestling is REALLY supposed to be, within the show, is total idiocy.

So everything else can be over exaggerated, from people kidnapping people, backstage brawls, beating up bosses, hitting people with cars, but title reigns have to mirror real sports? Uhm, no.

Wreslting is supposed to be "real". Yes, clearly it isnt, and we are ALL SO COOL BECUASE WE KNOWS ITS NOT REALZ HAHA but, yea, within the framework of the fantasy of the show, yea, its supposed to be portrayed as "real". So, I ask you, how often in real sports does a champion successfully defend their title? Furthermore, if the champions defended their titles with a frequency of once a month, how often would they then keep them? Every major sport, even the ones with individual fighting titles, such as Boxing and MMA, people very rarely hold onto their titles past 5 to 6 defenses. Now, think if these defenses came monthly, or multiple ones within a month. There is just no WAY a champ doesnt drop the title if they are defending it with such frequency. Sure, Brock Lesnar may hold the title for over a year in the UFC, but thats about 3 title defenses. 3 title defenses is 6 fucking weeks in the WWE.

The title is a prop, and not an actual "title". Comparing a prop in a show to an actual championship where the winner is not scripted isn't a fair comparison. Pro sports teams, and singles athletes go over hours of tape and training, and strategy to try to win. In wrestling, the guys are in the back determining how everything is going to play out.

Football, basketball, ANY major sport, how often to we see Champs defend successfully? Barely ever. My point with all this is, if we want Wrestling to be potrayed as legit, as "real" then there is NO problem with a title changing hands often. It portrays the title is hotly contested, and strong feild of competitors do that contesting.

They don't defend successfully because there are things like coaches, scouts, salary caps, promotion, free agents, training, retirements, trades, injuries, and so many more variables. The title is hard to defend because they are playing real games every other day or ever week over the course of months. Year to year in a real sport is different from show to show in a scripted show.

People like to say it makes the belt less prestigous, and I would really have to disagree. Why would it be less prestigous if everyone wants it, and everyone is fighting for it? If people are going the extra mile to win it, regularly?

Regular title changes keeps us on our toes as veiwers. The last year or so of PPV has been fucking epic, becuase every show is a must see. You remember the days when a title defense was ALL but assured on some shows dont you? Are you REALLY trying to tell me that things are less exciting now, then they were then? Of course they arent. Every show is fun, every show is exciting, every show as intrigue.

The purpose of the title is to build characters. If you think hot potato titles are going to build characters then by all means do it. I think that a longer title reign can be more entertaining because you question..."Who is going to beat this guy"?

If the story line is entertaining, then it doesn't matter how long a person holds the title. I think the hot potato title changes have been a pain in the ass because its been between the same guys with no proper feud in place, thanks to the poor writing as of late. I don't think its so much about the title changes.

Just like real sports. Just like its supposed to be.

But wrestling's not a real sport.

 

[Bernkastel]

The way I see it, title reigns are designed to build credible and quality champions. They are a tool that builds the foundation around feuds and angles. That is why so much hype goes into major championship feuds.

Regardless of the champion being a heel or face, the fans know that by following a title feud from PPV to PPV, they will get an emotional and financial payoff at the end.

The term 'hot potato title' would refer to a belt that is ricochet from champion to champion with very little investment in storyline development. Mid card titles such as the tag team, women's, and (at times) Intercontinental can all be described as 'hot potato titles.' This is simply because these titles are secondary, and don't require as much effort to maintain as the World titles do.

World titles are not hot potatoed; even today's WWE and TNA both have build ups and pay offs with their World title defenses and changes. If a wrestler wins a main title, and only holds it for a day or a week, in my opinion, that means that storyline will be contributing to a larger and more successful angle in the future.

For example, when Kane won the title off of Stone Cold, only to lose it back the next day, the title wasn't 'hot potatoed.' Instead, that incidence helped add fuel to the storyline that would create an even bigger angle, Austin vs McMahon, which eventually led to the big payoff match, Austin vs the Rock at Mania 15.

Events that may look like mistakes in the short run, often times will have a hand in setting up something major in the long run.

 

[Razor]

I would like to preface my statements by first asserting that I am assuming the title is "hot potatoed" between a maximum of 5 wrestlers. If the title is ricocheted so much that you no longer know who is the main event and who is the mid card, you have a problem.

Tossing the title around between competitors helps build the credibility of your main event. It also adds that last bit of "oomph" to the title scene. When Cena stood up during his year long title reign and continued to say "I'm going to overcome the odds," who really believed that he had any odds to overcome? He had essentially exhausted the entire main event. They fucking built Umaga and Khali specifically so that they could be added to the main event to fight Cena. However, with a more fluid title picture, it seems like the champion is always at risk.

Triple H legitimately seems at risk of losing the title to Orton, Cena, or HBK. Why? Because they have all held titles, and shown they could stand their own against each other. What point would giving a champion sudden, superhuman stamina to fight back any challenger serve? It's only logical now that the champion be shown to have a problem on his hands any time a main event star challenges him. They have all beaten each other before, what difference does it make if he's challenger or champion?

I also feel, as Norcal does, that there needs to be some sort of set guidelines. Either we want wrestling to portray a sport, or we don't. I've heard enough people on these forums lament "sports entertainment" and preach the second coming of Christ in every ROH champion that I have a feeling we want the sport aspect. That's fine, but don't bitch when the title is lost every other PPV. If it's a sport, the same rules of losing your championship apply. You may be champion, but everyone challenging you is just as good as you are. If you fuck up once, you're out a championship.

If we all want to forgo the sport aspect and completely embrace the over-the-top drama of what is unfolding before us (as I have argued for almost a year now), then go back a paragraph and read what I typed out. Everyone in the main event picture is seen as just as good as the other person, so Cena losing his title to Orton after 2 months isn't that big of a deal.

Honestly, you can't even argue the "What....Sheamus?" card. That title loss from Cena was specifically meant to catapult Sheamus to the main event and to open up the admittedly stale main event scene.

When it comes down to it, a title loss always has some kind of logic behind it. Promise. Maybe it's twisted WWE logic, or maybe it's as simple as "Hey, Triple H is just as good as Orton, so Triple H can win. Oh well." I honestly don't see the problem with a hot potato title, especially if the title is nothing more than a prop to build character or storyline.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I see it a little differently than other fans might. I dislike the reigns that I refer to as "short pointless reigns" but sometimes also dislike longer reigns. It depends on the wrestler himself/herself too. When someone that I like and want to see win is able to get a title, then I will continue to root for them and want to see them keep the title longer. Cena's year long reign is the best example of that. I loved that title reign. The more successful defenses he had, the more excited I got. When someone I don't like gets a title, I begin rooting for the guys who are challenging them for their title. An example here is JBL's long reign from 2004. I remember thinking "when is someone going to defeat him!?". Whether you like the wrestler or not, the longer reigns are more impressive.

The shorter reigns don't impress me much. If wrestler A holds a belt for 2 weeks only for wrestler B to win it, but then lost it BACK to wrestler A again.... it makes wrestler B's reign look like it was a waste of time. I won't go as far as to call it "title reign hot potato" but the way I just happen to see it is that longer title reigns are far more impressive in pro-wrestling and short reigns don't impress me much, sometimes they don't at all.

I think that the short reigns do take away some prestige. Especially when the same two or three guys keep trading the belt between really short reigns. I understand the argument about it being more realistic to not have as dominant of a reign and see more title changes.... but we as fans know that wrestling matches have predetermined outcomes, and since we know it's a show, it becomes more impressive to see longer reigns because the champ looks more dominant and it gives a rub to the guy who dethrones the champ after a long reign. (Such as Edge and Orton, for ending Cena's 2 really long reigns)

I'd be willing to debate this further with anyone who disagrees.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Good thread here. I'd like to weigh in.

The first of many, my good sir. Thanks for the support

So everything else can be over exaggerated, from people kidnapping people, backstage brawls, beating up bosses, hitting people with cars, but title reigns have to mirror real sports? Uhm, no.

Im old school, bro. Never in any place will you see me say all of the above are good things to saturate your product with. Every now and again? Sure. Those things happen in real sports, too, Do they not? Ever heard the names Pacman Jones, Gilbert Arenas, Tiger Woods, Rae Carruth, Maurice CLarett? Yea, crazy shit happens in real life too. Clearly, you cant have it at an absolute ridiculous clip, but as ive said before, we are working within the framework of a fantasy show as well.

Do people go running around in black leather suits kicking the shit out of criminals? No of course not. It doesnt stop the directors of such things from trying to maintain integrity, and a realm of reality, within the framework of the fantasy. No, its not real, but you are supposed to forget that, becuase it is presented as such.

The title is a prop, and not an actual "title". Comparing a prop in a show to an actual championship where the winner is not scripted isn't a fair comparison. Pro sports teams, and singles athletes go over hours of tape and training, and strategy to try to win. In wrestling, the guys are in the back determining how everything is going to play out.

Well see, this is were we can never come to terms. Legitimacy within reality. Yea, its a show, but the entire point is to be presented as real. Hence the terms "work" and "sell". People are supposed to loose that jaded way, and slip into the fantasy of it being real for those few hours. You have never seen them show wrestlers "studying tape" in the back before matches? scouting their opponets moves? See, there are elements right out of your example that are sprinkled within wrestling. Its absolutely comparable, if you want the show to work the way its supposed to.

They don't defend successfully because there are things like coaches, scouts, salary caps, promotion, free agents, training, retirements, trades, injuries, and so many more variables. The title is hard to defend because they are playing real games every other day or ever week over the course of months. Year to year in a real sport is different from show to show in a scripted show.

It isnt though, if that scripted show's intention is to be presented as legitimate competition

The purpose of the title is to build characters. If you think hot potato titles are going to build characters then by all means do it. I think that a longer title reign can be more entertaining because you question..."Who is going to beat this guy"?

If the story line is entertaining, then it doesn't matter how long a person holds the title. I think the hot potato title changes have been a pain in the ass because its been between the same guys with no proper feud in place, thanks to the poor writing as of late. I don't think its so much about the title changes.

Well this we can agree on fair enough I suppose, but this pretty much goes for everything. Its all about how you use plot devices, wether they be title changes, long reigns, car ambushes, kidnappings what have you. I am merely here stating how idiotic people can be for thorwing fits over hot potato title situations in general, obviously if its backed with poor booking, then an argument is to be had, but thats over poor booking, not frequent title changes in general.

But wrestling's not a real sport.

Do you sit in movie threatres and tell everyone around you that what is happening in the film isnt actually real....Just so they know?

 

[Suneeboy]

The first of many, my good sir. Thanks for the support

The pleasure is all mine. Thank you.

Im old school, bro. Never in any place will you see me say all of the above are good things to saturate your product with. Every now and again? Sure. Those things happen in real sports, too, Do they not? Ever heard the names Pacman Jones, Gilbert Arenas, Tiger Woods, Rae Carruth, Maurice CLarett? Yea, crazy shit happens in real life too. Clearly, you cant have it at an absolute ridiculous clip, but as ive said before, we are working within the framework of a fantasy show as well.

Point taken. However, are the people in those respective sports committing acts against their peers within that same sport (other than the 1 off Arenas incident)? Or better yet, do the instances that occur in these sports lead to a competitive match between the two directly relating to the instance? Tiger Woods didn't sleep with Vijay Singh's wife, resulting in Tiger and Vijay having a golf tournament a week later to settle the score. The unique fantasy world of wrestling, cannot be compared to real sports, which is why we love it. It is exempt from being taken as real, which is why it is so unique, and why it keeps a hardcore following.

Do people go running around in black leather suits kicking the shit out of criminals? No of course not. It doesnt stop the directors of such things from trying to maintain integrity, and a realm of reality, within the framework of the fantasy. No, its not real, but you are supposed to forget that, becuase it is presented as such.

We are not supposed to forget that its fake so to speak. We are to treat it as you mention like a movie. Take it as real, but accept exaggerations and inaccuracies...sort of like watching a comic book unfold before your eyes, or watching James Bond drive a car through a building, and not having 1 hair out of place.

Well see, this is were we can never come to terms. Legitimacy within reality. Yea, its a show, but the entire point is to be presented as real. Hence the terms "work" and "sell". People are supposed to loose that jaded way, and slip into the fantasy of it being real for those few hours. You have never seen them show wrestlers "studying tape" in the back before matches? scouting their opponets moves? See, there are elements right out of your example that are sprinkled within wrestling. Its absolutely comparable, if you want the show to work the way its supposed to.

I think we are on the same terms just using different words in this part. You see, the "reality" is not real. The reality is that there is a show going on. When you watch Law & Order do you think that someone is really being arrested? No, but at the same time you don't watch and say "This is fake". Why? Because you are captivated by the show. Now, if that same criminal was a Japanese spy and was to use kung fu and beat up 10 cops would you say, "that's not realistic, the cops should've won". No, as long as you are entertained. There is a spectacle associated with wrestling that makes it what we call "Larger Than Life".

It isnt though, if that scripted show's intention is to be presented as legitimate competition

Ahhh, an enigma wrapped in a riddle. The scripted show is intended to be a scripted show.....that happens to portray real competition. Not to be presented as real competition.

Well this we can agree on fair enough I suppose, but this pretty much goes for everything. Its all about how you use plot devices, wether they be title changes, long reigns, car ambushes, kidnappings what have you. I am merely here stating how idiotic people can be for thorwing fits over hot potato title situations in general, obviously if its backed with poor booking, then an argument is to be had, but thats over poor booking, not frequent title changes in general.

So are you saying that the hot potato title changes as of late have been booked properly? I'm mostly referring to the WWE, because it has been sticking out like a sore thumb. From Edge, to Hardy, to Edge, to HHH, to Orton, to Batista, to Orton, to Cena, to Orton, to Cena on RAW alone in one year. Hasn't been booked well, and hasn't made the case for the hot potato title being entertaining or mirroring real sports. It has just made the case for the hot potato title being the result of lazy booking. A guy can get hit with a chair and thrown into steel steps and walk out of the match perfectly fine, but can't hold on to the title for more than 30 days? Bad booking, not realistic booking.

Do you sit in movie threatres and tell everyone around you that what is happening in the film isnt actually real....Just so they know?

Only if the movie is a REALLY bad movie....like 12 Rounds.

 

[Miko]

Yeah I find it strange when people complain about hot potatoe title reigns, thing is, wrestling got to the point that when somebody won the title at Survivor Series it was a surprise if they lost it before WrestleMania. Now if somebody wins the title at the Royal Rumble they may lose it at No Way Out.

People say they want the attitude era back, then when we get something the attitude era was becoming famous for in back and forth title reigns (The Rock had 9 of them for fucks sake) people complain. In my opinion it makes it waaay more interesting, opens up the title scene a fuckload more and actually makes you want to buy PPV's because, hey guess what? Anything could happen.

Good thread idea by the way.

 

[lghikas]

Well see the problem is, at least in my opinion, that Wrestling isn't really portrayed as real but more as a Soap Opera, where time and time again you have to suspend disbelief. No matter what company you are watching in America, it's all sports entertainment. If you want real wrestling there is the Olympics, or things like MMA.

The whole purpose of Sports Entertainment is to tell stories, with the title representing who is supposed to be the best, for whatever the title is for. So for someone to "hot potato" a title shows that the previous title holder wasn't as good as he looked to be. And especially now, where it is hard to create new stars, they could be easy made by having a good strong reign on one of the lower tier belts. One of the main reasons Miz and Kofi were able to look creditable against the upper guys was because of how strong they were booked as champs. The longer some one goes as champ the better for whoever finally beats him cleanly.

With that being said I don't dislike when it is involved in a storyline(Big Upset) or someones gimmick, like Edge's Ultimate Opportunist.

 

[Blade]

Very good post, NorCal.

I think, when it comes to title reigns, length doesn't really matter as much as people seem to think it does. I believe it all comes down to the quality of the matches, I think that's what really builds up a title's credibility. If there's a really good world title match where either man could win and both men are working their asses off you're thinking "These are two of the best in the world, so evenly matches, fighting for this title. They're giving it everything." But long title reigns don't give the title as much credibility as people seem to think. Cena held the title for a year, destroyed any opponent he came across. That just makes you think that these guys are challenging for the titles but aren't actually worthy enough. That, I think, can hurt a title's credibility though it isn't obvious. I think there's nothing wrong with a back and forth of title changes between 2 or 3 guys. It shows they're both great wrestlers and sometime wrestler A win and sometimes wrestler B wins. It just makes the title seem like it is being fought over by the best in the world.

 

[SavageTaker]

I would have to half agree and half disagree with you NorCal, if that makes any sense.

How I see it is that a title shouldn’t be jumping from wrestler to wrestler constantly. When that happens I feel the title loses some credibility, which isn’t a good thing when it’s a World Title losing the credibility and prestige it has/had.

Titles, whether it’s a world title or a mid-card title, should have some form of stability. Meaning that there should be a balance in the amount of time a champion has his or her title. Maybe they can do a longer reign (not necessarily a one year reign, maybe a few months) and then they can do a few short reigns so people don’t start getting bored with the same champion. Also, that allows for storylines to be built better since the title isn’t going from wrestler to a different wrestler to a different wrestler constantly.

So aside from making titles lose credibility and prestige, at least in my eyes, another problem I find is that if a title is a “hot potato” then it adds undeserved and unmemorable reigns to a wrestler. I’m going to use wrestlers as examples so maybe people understand what I’m trying to say. Randy Orton is considered a 6-time World Champion. Bret Hart on the other hand is considered a 7-time World Champion if you count his two reigns as WCW champion. Anyone else see what’s wrong with that? My point is that Bret worked hard to achieve what he has achieved and it took him a much longer amount of time. That’s not the case with Randy.

Overall, I don’t mind the “hot potato” title as long as they have some longer reigns to balance out the shorter ones, if that makes any sense either. So I kind of agree with what you’re saying NorCal, but there are some things that I do disagree with because the “hot potato” titles can make titles lose credibility and prestige and because of them there are several wrestler who are considered multi-time world champions yet they don’t deserve being an x time world champion.