thoughts on wrestlers standings

[dr.greenthumb]

i was just reading a post where a user was saying that if vince ran tna he would, among other things, throw wrestlers together and have them fight for no reason and no story line.

and that got me thinking....

from as long as i can remember, title matches mostly, have always come along with a storyline/feud.

would there be any interest in giving title matches and/or #1 contender spots to wrestler that "earned" it?

like typical sports where your wins and losses would be tracked.

the only time i've ever remembered hearing about a win/loss record is if the guy was making a debut and they'd mention he was undefeated or of course goldberg.

 

[berlinbrawler]

This thing about Vince running TNA can in no fashion be taken seriously. And creating a tracking system like in a real sport would add realism to the scene, but it also creates limitations. This way, when creative decides someone should get a title shot, they need to build him up first, so he has the track record to warrant it. With a system like this Sheamus wouldn't have gotten the shot at the U.S. title a few weeks back. It would seem logical at first, but ultimately it would probably just slow down the whole show.

And why shouldn't title matches come along with a storyline? After all, people are supposed to care about it. What (wrestling-)show sells more tickets, the one where the champ wants to avenge his pet alligator being eaten by the lunatic Nr. 1 contender, or the one where they champ and contender face off because the contender has an impressive win/loss record?

 

[MCMG]

The storyline usually comes after a superstar earns the shot.
For example sheamus won a battle royal then feuded with Cena. Why would sheamus just spend the next few weeks leading to their match beating the crap out of Santino and jamie noble.
Miz cashes in MITB then afterwards feud with Orton. Orton wants his belt back so logic states they feud.

 

[H33LTurn]

First of all for those of you who think Vince is interested in buying TNA, he's been reported as concerned over the future of TNA and the eagerness to have the competition succeed. COmpetition is good for business, and Vince wants someone to push him to the level. As far as the win/loss record thing is concerned, WWE is more of a rivalry than an actual competition company. Title matches with sufficient build up as a result of a rivalry have done so much better than those earned in a #1 contender tournament or something similar to what TNA does. WWE has so many superstars that judging by that ranking system, some people might never get a title opportunity. It would be hard to push people with that system. For the most part, #1 contenders do win most of their matches so that they dont look weak going into the PPV, but WWE still depends on that rivalry build up to bring interest into the match.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I started a thread about Vince's possible interest in buying TNA in the TNA section of the forum. Like most others, I don't think Vince has any serious designs of TNA at this point in time. This was a shareholders meeting and it was a shareholder that asked him if he wanted to buy TNA. The thing about a publicly traded company is that any serious aquisition of another company is something that has to be discussed as such meetings. Vince has a responsibility to people who own WWE stock because a decision to buy TNA could have bearing on those stockholders financially. He can't just willy nilly say that he's gonna buy TNA and have that be the end of it.

As for a Ranking System, it wouldn't work in the long term because TNA tried something along those lines at this time last year. TNA's method was to have fans go to their website and vote on who they felt should be #1 contender for the TNA WHC. Those fans votes would be taken into consideration by a "championship committee" before creating the final top 10 list. It was an interesting idea on paper but it didn't pan out well at all in practice. One problem was that, ultimately, the fan votes didn't mean shit. It was a ploy to get people to visit the TNA website where if they went to vote on this, then they might stick around and take a look at what else was going on. Also, this "championship committee" was nonexistent as the TNA brass would ultimately choose to push who they wanted to push anyway and would just say that the #1 contender, whomever that would be, turned out to be the guy the fans voted on. Another huge problem TNA had was that it wound up with a different #1 contender each month. The new #1 contender was announced, there'd be a few weeks of minor build up before the "feud" would culminate in a single match at a ppv. It made for mediocre feuds and contributed to a mediocre run with the title from RVD.

If the WWE tried something along the same lines, it'd probably meet with the same results. It's ultimately going to be up to the WWE brass who gets pushed and put into what spots, so dressing it up as anything otherwise is just kind of pointless.

 

[GW_Hart86]

I think wrestlers standings would be a great idea. It would be really appeal,ing and draw a lot of interest to have a rank system. Not to the point where every wrestler in the company has a rank but at least have a top 10 list where a wrestler has to fight their way to the top, earn that number 1 spot then face whoever the champion is at one of the PPV.

Personally I think this is a great idea, but as for it generating public interest across the board, I'm not so sure. Will be interesting to hear peoples thoughts on this.

 

[Cracka Jack]

I could see this being interesting as a sort of annual gimmick type deal. Like, have a PPV with a two month or more build to it, and use this system to decide who gets a title shot. It'll feel like whoever gets it really earned it and is a threatening challenger to the champ. But I don't see much of a storyline being built out of this, though maybe that's the point: it's more about competition.

The problem becomes if they try to use this more often, then storylines go out the window and creative can't be all that creative. And knowing WWE, if it's a success, they'll try to milk it as much as possible. So, in short, no, this probably wouldn't go so well in WWE.

 

[dr.greenthumb]

thanks for the feedback, what if you factored in these ideas..

have it short term say a couple months...

have a running tally board so fans etc see while they are in the arena..

it would be a good way to start future feuds

and situations where a specific opponent may come to your match to interupt to cost you the match and standing points (could backfire with a dq)

or a stable member being told to job a match because he would end up ranked higher or had a match against the leader

underdog gets a couple lucky wins, where as the big guys have a more even win loss ratio, so he ends up with a better record (like splitting the vote)


* i don't dislike the current system, just for some sort of variety

 

[blockanWo]

I actually kinda like the idea of having a ranking system. I mean afterall people are after the top belt. You need a ranking system to decide who is next in line for the shot. It would be a great way to incorporate a more "sporty" feel to the industry.

I really liked what TNA started to do last year with the voting system. Although they made the mistake of thinking they knew what the fans wanted and was forced to put midcarders in main events. Then had to fudge the rankings with other stipulations so they could put who they wanted in the main event.

 

[Dagger Dias]

would there be any interest in giving title matches and/or #1 contender spots to wrestler that "earned" it?

They DO that though.... Those who are being pushed had to work for that push to earn it. Then if they are not over enough, the push is stopped. As much as some guys "deserve" pushes more than others, they who get pushed do deserve it in WWE's eyes.

like typical sports where your wins and losses would be tracked.

Ok, that's a completely different animal. The reason the win/loss records are not taken into consideration is because that would complicate things far too much. Sometimes the bigger names lose to put over someone new, and sometimes other people win who "shouldn't". The way they have it set up makes more sense. Remember, it's not like "real" sports due to it being a different genre of entertainment.