Title Matches

[Rckstrtmmy]

I don't know about you but I for one am sick of the WWE only having title matches at PPVs. Now I realize that they'll throw a title match on Raw every now and then (and I'm only talking about Raw btw), but they don't use the titles to further feuds anymore. I think if Sheamus defended the title more often he would look like a more legit champion. Same with the Miz. This guy is your star mid-carder and he has a title...let him defend it! Not just against the person he's feuding with either...let him face some other people with the title on the line and incorporate the feuds from there. (ie defend against JoMo and have DiBiase mess it up somehow) The only way the WWE advances feuds now is talking. The matches on Raw have been piss-poor as of late for the most part and the finishes have been more about protecting everyone's momentum instead of furthering the story.

My questions to you....

1.) Do the Titles need to be used more in feuds?
2.) Do you agree that title matches make things more exciting?

 

[Chardee Macdennis]

I don't know if I'm 100% behind what you're saying, but I will say this, title defenses on RAW would absolutely help out as well as create storylines. First and foremost, a title defense in and of itself makes the match more interesting, even if 90% of the time you can predict the outcome. However, let's say for example, Sheamus is fueding w/Randy Orton and their program is close to being complete, throw a random superstar (preferably a huge underdog) in a title match on RAW. Example: Sheamus defends one night on RAW and out of nowhere a guy like Evan Bourne catches him off gaurd and wins the title or at least comes damn close. Then a you have a fresh fued to take over when Randy and Sheamus finish up at a PPV. There are a number of other ways they could run with this, but I do agree, it would add some interesting twists here and there. Unfortunately, we are not going to see things of this nature on RAW for the foreseeable future.

To elaborate just a bit more, look at the history between 1-2-3 Kid and Razor Ramon and the IC belt. The back and forth and the love/hate realationship it built between the characters.

 

[Rckstrtmmy]

I don't know if I'm 100% behind what you're saying, but I will say this, title defenses on RAW would absolutely help out as well as create storylines. First and foremost, a title defense in and of itself makes the match more interesting, even if 90% of the time you can predict the outcome. However, let's say for example, Sheamus is fueding w/Randy Orton and their program is close to being complete, throw a random superstar (preferably a huge underdog) in a title match on RAW. Example: Sheamus defends one night on RAW and out of nowhere a guy like Evan Bourne catches him off gaurd and wins the title or at least comes damn close. Then a you have a fresh fued to take over when Randy and Sheamus finish up at a PPV. There are a number of other ways they could run with this, but I do agree, it would add some interesting twists here and there. Unfortunately, we are not going to see things of this nature on RAW for the foreseeable future.

To elaborate just a bit more, look at the history between 1-2-3 Kid and Razor Ramon and the IC belt. The back and forth and the love/hate realationship it built between the characters.

You're right on the track I was thinking! I remember back in the day when HHH was in his unstoppable championship mode and nobody was beating him and they put him in title matches with huuuuuge underdogs like three weeks in a row. One of them was Taka Michinokou (sp?) and I was thinking this little dude might actually pull this off. HHH of course won but it was a damn good match and so much more fun to watch than anything that's been on Raw lately...

 

[LitasRevenge79]

I'm glad someone brought up this thread. Everytime we see the start of what could be something good, it just stops dead in its tracks, or we wait for the PPV, and then there's a big let down at the PPV. Now I'm all for the newer stars of today. Hell, I thought there were some GOLDEN spots for Miz to cash in on Sheamus already leading up to Summerslam that would have been superb. But alas, no. It was a let down, and then the PPV match with RKO and Sheamus was a bit of a let down, but at least RKO got his in the end. But there were the good ol days, of Trish vs. Lita back in December of 2004 at a Raw where she did that amazing Suicide dive that nearly took out both her and Trish. That was quite a moment. There was also a title match at my Raw show of Cena vs Edge in a steel cage 10-2-06. Even Dibiase Jr's Million Dollar belt when he had his little thing going for a while with R-Truth and JoMo, would've been EVEN better if that belt were on the line. But all these feuds sometimes would be even better if there were more to fight for should there be more than dignity, because it seems like lately people are fighting for a week here, a week there, and then forget about each other and then go on to PPV. Then pick up again. I'm not saying to do Attitude Era:Redux, but try to incorporate the titles a bit more. I haven't seen Miz defend his belt in a while. Whatever happened to the 30 day rule?

 

[darbare]

THANK YOU.....I have wondering this for so long.....would it really hurt for the Miz to defend that US title......it would help the challenger build credibility because it can be looked at as if they are good enough to challenge for it, and it gives the champion credbility with more title defenses...pretty much every champion on the roster needs to defend it more, moreso the midcard champions and tag champions....I think the WWE is trying to be like UFC, but this isnt real fighting so let them defend it, not just on house shows nobody gets to see

 

[legendkiller1979]

So what if they do start putting title matches on tv. One of three things will happen.
1. They will be DQ matches that won't be any good
2. The titles will change hands constantly and will mean nothing
3. There will be no reason to buy the pay per views.

Twenty years ago the wwf did a great job of hyping wrestlers and feuds. Today it's just not special anymore. Is anyone really going to believe that the wwe title will change hands if it's defended on raw. Of course not. Having pay per views every month makes it so hard to build anything. You have DQ finishes so they can set up the rematch for the next pay per view. Title matches on tv will just make it less special.
I know will disagree with me simply because they are not old enough to remember how great wrestling used to be.

 

[billm75]

I remember way back in the day, when all we had was one heavyweight championship and one intercontinental championship and one tag team championship. When the IC champ held the belt, he may have been in a program with contender A, but he still fought others, even in non-title matches. The top contender fought through these other contenders as well, and they rarely stepped in the ring together (Champ and Contender A, that is) until it was time to defend that belt.

Now it seems the formula is this:

Champ vs. #1 Contender (How did he become #1? Nobody really knows)
Match 1 - Contender wins a non-title bout or by some means that keeps him from taking the title.
Match 2 - Champ gets revenge and wins OR Champ looks terrible and gets squashed, only to pull out a last minute miracle.
Match 3 - Last shot for our #1 contender. If they plan for the belt to change hands, he wins clean. If not, he loses clean and then the feud is simply over.

This is lazy to me. Let these guys earn their way to the title shots, even the champs, they have to stay in practice don't they?

I miss the old days of booking.

 

[Chardee Macdennis]

So what if they do start putting title matches on tv. One of three things will happen.
1. They will be DQ matches that won't be any good
2. The titles will change hands constantly and will mean nothing
3. There will be no reason to buy the pay per views.

Twenty years ago the wwf did a great job of hyping wrestlers and feuds. Today it's just not special anymore. Is anyone really going to believe that the wwe title will change hands if it's defended on raw. Of course not. Having pay per views every month makes it so hard to build anything. You have DQ finishes so they can set up the rematch for the next pay per view. Title matches on tv will just make it less special.
I know will disagree with me simply because they are not old enough to remember how great wrestling used to be.

Not old enough? I've been watching wrestling since the early-mid 1980's, I certainly don't think that puts me in that category. Yet I still disagree with you. I remember when belts WERE defended on "free tv". Especially the IC and Tag Titles. You don't have to have a title defense every week, but once in a while sure would spice things up a bit. Plus, even if there was a title defense every couple of months, that certainly doesn't mean they will have to change hands all that often and loose their prestige. Title defenses with near falls from surprise contenders can serve to create new fueds as well as build interest in PPV's leading to more buys. I certainly don't want to see the straps defended every week, but every once in a while would be nice. It's also a good way to get your casual viewer more interested and turn them into potential "die hards".

 

[Heartbreak_Kid_707]

Does anyone remember when the last time the world title actually changed hands on Raw? Like i said im 31 and been watchign since like the mid to late 80's...i may be forgetting soemthing but the most memorable one comes to mind is when Foley won on Raw. Im sure there have been something sicne then im just forgetting..Does anyone remember?

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

I completely agree with you. I think the title is actually getting in the way of some great feuds. Every single month they build a feud, defend the title at a PPV, and start over the next night on Raw. The champion gets taken out by the contender, the champion gets the advantage, the contender looks strong going in to the PPV, and then the champion wins, or somebody interfers to give the contender the win. It's not always that cut and dry, but that's the general formula.

I think if there were some title matches on Raw every once in awhile, it would open up PPVs for some great feuds. It would also most likely increase the Raw ratings...maybe. I know that every PPV likes to have it's big title match, but some of the best matches in history haven't been for the title. It would be great to see a fresh match highlighting a PPV that has nothing to do with the title. Actually, I guess SummerSlam met that qualification... Just proof that great angles don't have to involve the title, and while I did like the Sheamus/Orton match and feud, it would have been cool to see them on Team WWE instead of Morrison/R-Truth. How badass would a team have been with Cena, Hart, Orton, Sheamus, Jericho, and Edge?

 

[Rckstrtmmy]

So what if they do start putting title matches on tv. One of three things will happen.
1. They will be DQ matches that won't be any good
2. The titles will change hands constantly and will mean nothing
3. There will be no reason to buy the pay per views.

Twenty years ago the wwf did a great job of hyping wrestlers and feuds. Today it's just not special anymore. Is anyone really going to believe that the wwe title will change hands if it's defended on raw. Of course not. Having pay per views every month makes it so hard to build anything. You have DQ finishes so they can set up the rematch for the next pay per view. Title matches on tv will just make it less special.
I know will disagree with me simply because they are not old enough to remember how great wrestling used to be.

I totally agree that nothing is really special anymore. I blame that more on creative as I think there is alot of talent in the WWE right now. I also agree that if the title switched hands all the time it would kill it. But why should only one person get a shot at each title every month? It seems like the WWE sets up a match right after a PPV then drags on with both wrestlers talking about why they'll win until the next PPV. Throw in a couple sneak attacks and a tag team match and you have a feud. It's bullshit.

And I believe the last time the WWE Championship changed hands on Raw was when RVD lost to Edge in 2006...but I could be wrong.

 

[Judah's Lion]

And I believe the last time the WWE Championship changed hands on Raw was when RVD lost to Edge in 2006...but I could be wrong.

not to be argumentative, but i think that the last time the title changed hands on Raw was the first time that CM Punk cashed in MITB against a beaten down Edge.
then you've got the Edge going over RVD and Cena in a triple threat match before that.
and of course the epic Foley win over Rock. that was awesome.

on to the thread at hand: titles absolutely add interest to a match or feud. so the logic might be that the more titles are on the line, the more interest there is in any given show or ppv.

that's the theory anyways.

but this doesn't mean that it always has to be the WHC on the line. what if the Miz was in the main event of Raw, not challenging for the WHC, but defending the US Title against Truth. they already have a history, including trading the title back and forth. so you have Truth and Miz finish up some old business. during some of these matches, have Daniel Bryan on commentary, maybe do a run-in during or after a match, or have Miz win clean over Truth and cut a promo against Bryan. this way, you are building up a ppv title feud between Miz and Bryan but still seeing the US Title defended against Truth.

the Tag Titles definitely need to see some more action. a title defense is in order. it's shameful that they weren't even on the card at Summerslam. why not? why couldn't we see a big build up with the Uso's that culminated there? poor booking is probably the best (or at least easiest) answer, but it's just a waste. so put a couple of tag teams together (no need to rehash the well deserved complaint that this division is needlessly suffering in the WWE right now) and get a good challenge going. have a singles match with one of the Hart Dynasty against one of the challenging team. then the next week, have the other members fight. then do a six-way match with the Hart Dynasty and Natalya against the challengers and another diva. then at the ppv, do a title match. no matter who wins, do a rematch the next night on Raw. whoever lost the night before could win this one and lead to another build up and rubber match at the next ppv.

i don't claim to be the best thinker or writer in the world, but i do know that things could be better. i've seen it in the past.

 

[sweet-shin-music]

I think they need more title defenses definitely. During the attitude era there was a title defense just about every week. Tag titles, hardcore title, intercontinental, world title and even the European title was getting defended a lot. Now the miz goes a month or 2 without a defense and its almost always cena, orton, sheamus and edge in the world title picture. Somebody new needs a world title match for once. Thats why im hoping the miz doesn't get booked to be the first mitb winner to lose when he cashes in.

 

[oldschool123]

I totally agree that nothing is really special anymore. I blame that more on creative as I think there is alot of talent in the WWE right now. I also agree that if the title switched hands all the time it would kill it. But why should only one person get a shot at each title every month? It seems like the WWE sets up a match right after a PPV then drags on with both wrestlers talking about why they'll win until the next PPV. Throw in a couple sneak attacks and a tag team match and you have a feud. It's bullshit.

And I believe the last time the WWE Championship changed hands on Raw was when RVD lost to Edge in 2006...but I could be wrong.

Like the other poster said, this is mainly due to there being PPVs every month. As it is there are only 3 or 4 shows between PPVs to try and make a feud. If they don't name the challenger the next show then there is very little time for any feud to develop.

 

[Rckstrtmmy]

Like the other poster said, this is mainly due to there being PPVs every month. As it is there are only 3 or 4 shows between PPVs to try and make a feud. If they don't name the challenger the next show then there is very little time for any feud to develop.

I agree but who said a feud absolutely HAS to end at the PPV? The main reason is because there are always only 2 opposing sides in every feud. Why not have 4, 5, 6 people involved in one angle like they used to? This could keep matches fresher and it gives lots of options for matches and finishes to keep feuds going over several PPVs. The only way the WWE has a feud span multiple PPVs is with rematch clauses. This is also bullshit.

You know why the WWE only has these options? The brand split. If the talent pool wasn't watered down by choice then they would give themselves more opportunity for creativity. But that's another thread...