What ever happened to multi-person championship fueds?

["Cool Guy" Jensen]

Ok, so for a while now, I've been complaining and I've been seeing a lot of other people complain about how the championships are not as prestigious as they once were. And while I can pretty much understand why someone would go either direction, I would like to elaborate on my point.

Back in the 1990's and the earlier parts of 2000, we've seen many different fueds over championships. What interested me the most about those championship fueds was the fact that some of them were not just your traditional champion vs. challenger fueds. It involved more than one challenger, and at sometimes, while rare, it even included more than one champion. That good thing about that was the even if several people were fighting over the title, each had their own position and reason for why they wanted and deserved to be champion.

Nowadays, we still get to see multi-person matches over titles, but not really multi-person fueds. I really do not see why not.

If you ask me, the Intercontinental Championship scene on Smackdown would benefit the most from a multi-person fued. Here's why:

The Intercontinental Championship was, at one point, looked at as a stepping stone towards the main event and sometimes a World Title. Nowadays, it's been held by random superstars or someone who was already a former World Champion. Right now, the title is being held by a great champion in John Morrison. And Smackdown is packed with young mid-card stars, like Morrison who could all benefit from fueding over, or winning the Intercontinental Championship.

We saw Dolph Ziggler as the only #1 contender for the title for the past 4 months straight. During those 4 months, we could have seen a lot more challengers, which could have strengthened Ziggler chances to win. Now, Drew McIntyre is apparently the #1 contender. While Morrison vs. McIntyre seems better suited as a one-on-one fued, why not add a few more people into the title scene? Matt Hardy isn't doing much and I don't see why. He'd make a great IC Champ, as it is the only non-World Title championship he hasn't held. R-Truth hasn't really been a star on Smackdown, and when his fued with C.M. Punk is over, he should challenge for the IC Title, if WWE doesn't think he's ready for the main event. Kane just lost 2 #1 contenders matches, why not have him challenge for the title, and not win it? Finlay wouldn't make a bad champ.

Same could be said about the other champions. On Raw, you have United States Champion, The Miz, who is not involved in any type of fued right now. There are many viable challengers on the Raw roster, in Carlito, Evan Bourne, Jack Swagger, Mark Henry, Santino Marella (maybe), Primo. Instead of having him fuedless, why not have him face other mid carders?

Melina is the Divas Champion. Why should Alicia Fox take a back seat now that Maryse is back? Can't both be challengers? WWE is doing a horrible job of using Gail Kim, she'd make a great champ, and Jillian is very underrated, having only been champ for 4 minutes.

Smackdown has the best divas division and should really be multi-fueded. Michelle McCool is boring as champion. Mickie James and Beth Phoenix has proven they can be good champions. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to see Natalya as champion soon. Maria and Layla aren't slackers either.

The WWE Championship, World Heavyweight Championship, and ECW Championships are all held by great champions who are willing to defend against all-comers, so multiple challengers should be their forte.

So, I want to know what happened to multi-person championship fueds? Why doesn't WWE do that much anymore. Is it a strategy for champs to have longer titles reigns? If so, then WWE is doing horribly in that. I think it would really help make the titles mean more if more people were involved in winning it. What are your thoughts?

 

[CHAOS]

Haven't got much to add to that because I agree with everything you've said, besides Jillian being under-rated, she's awful, but that's going off the point.

I really don't understand why they don't have multi-person feuds, every roster is strong in the mid-card area in my opinion, yet the majority of the talent aren't used whatsoever or wrestle pointless matches and aren't involved in anything worthwhile to anyone.

Bring back multi-person feuds!!

 

[johnbragg]

I don't know if I'm fully clear on what you mean by multi-person feuds. Would that mean multiple championship feuds at one time, like now in TNA where AJ Styles is facing Daniels next, but has a feud with Kurt Angle on the back burner and meanwhile Lashley is the official No. 1 contender? Or the main event feud at Wrestlemania 2000, the McMahon in every corner match? That was really three HHH feuds that intersected because only one person would walk out as champion. Rock and Foley had history, but the issues were all about HHH and his title.

I'm in favor of that style--logically, everyone with a plausible claim should be gunning for the top belt. Try and avoid too many multi-man clusterfuck matches for the title and it works great.

Or do you really mean multi-person feuds that involve the title, like the 2004 HHH vs HBK vs Benoit feud, where the title was at stake but there were big storyline issues between Hunter and Michaels?

Because that's a lot harder to do.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

They did this back in 1999/2000, I thought it was getting out of hand looking at that period the following were multi-person championship feuds

Summer Slam 1999 - Austin vs. Foley vs. Triple H
Unforgiven 1999 - Foley vs. Triple H vs. The Rock vs. Bulldog vs. Kane vs. Big Show
Survivor Series 1999 - Big Show vs. The Rock vs. Triple H
Wrestlemania 2000 - Big Show vs. The Rock vs. Triple H vs. Foley
King of the Ring 2000 - Triple H, Vince, Shane vs. Rock, Undertaker, Kane
Summer Slam 2000 - Triple H vs. Rock vs. Kurt Angle
Unforgiven 2000 - The Rock vs. Undertaker vs. Kane vs. Benoit
Armageddon 2000 - Austin vs. Rock vs. Angle vs. Rikishi vs. Undertaker vs. Triple H

So From Summer Slam 1999 to Armageddon 2000 we had a total of 16 Multi-Person Matches on PPV thats 50%. Here was my problem with this:

1. Having this many people involved in championship matches killed the drama of most rivalries with the lack of focus.

2. Every PPV felt the same, and these matches are just awkward variations of the other. This kills the excitment of subsequent matches, this is what happened at WM2000's main event; it had no hype and the interest was low. Why? Looks a Unforgiven and Survivor Series 1999, its basically the same match give or take.

 

[Dagger Dias]

[QUOTE="Cool Guy" Jensen;1563055]
So, I want to know what happened to multi-person championship fueds? Why doesn't WWE do that much anymore. Is it a strategy for champs to have longer titles reigns? If so, then WWE is doing horribly in that. I think it would really help make the titles mean more if more people were involved in winning it. What are your thoughts?[/QUOTE]

They still do them, just not very often. The triple threat matches at Survivor Series, the triple threat match at Night of Champions (which was a rerun of Wrestlemania 24's Raw Main Event), a fatal fourway shortly before that this summer.... and let's not forget Kofi's list of retentions he had in multiman matches with the US title this year.

It is easier to develop the characters in 1 on 1 feuds, and it can also make it easier for a champ to have a longer reign if he/she goes through their challengers one after another, rather than all at once. Of course, that would require more title retentions and WWE has not been doing that a whole lot lately, especially with the two world titles. I think things should keep going the way they are, and only have multi-person championship feuds every now and then, not more often. It becomes better material for the fans to watch because it is less confusing for them to figure out who they want to win.

 

[ccotreau1]

They did this back in 1999/2000, I thought it was getting out of hand looking at that period the following were multi-person championship feuds

Summer Slam 1999 - Austin vs. Foley vs. Triple H
Unforgiven 1999 - Foley vs. Triple H vs. The Rock vs. Bulldog vs. Kane vs. Big Show
Survivor Series 1999 - Big Show vs. The Rock vs. Triple H
Wrestlemania 2000 - Big Show vs. The Rock vs. Triple H vs. Foley
King of the Ring 2000 - Triple H, Vince, Shane vs. Rock, Undertaker, Kane
Summer Slam 2000 - Triple H vs. Rock vs. Kurt Angle
Unforgiven 2000 - The Rock vs. Undertaker vs. Kane vs. Benoit
Armageddon 2000 - Austin vs. Rock vs. Angle vs. Rikishi vs. Undertaker vs. Triple H

So From Summer Slam 1999 to Armageddon 2000 we had a total of 16 Multi-Person Matches on PPV thats 50%. Here was my problem with this:

1. Having this many people involved in championship matches killed the drama of most rivalries with the lack of focus.

2. Every PPV felt the same, and these matches are just awkward variations of the other. This kills the excitment of subsequent matches, this is what happened at WM2000's main event; it had no hype and the interest was low. Why? Looks a Unforgiven and Survivor Series 1999, its basically the same match give or take.

A lot of the time with those matches, it was always the same wrestlers too, which is why they felt the same, just a different combination of those wrestlers (who were main event wrestlers)...I would like to see more feuds at the mid-card level for the IC title and the US title, and get more exposure at that level like they did in the early to mid 1990s, when those titles actually meant something, those who held that title ended up eventually getting a shot at the world title of the promotion.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I would like to see more feuds at the mid-card level for the IC title and the US title, and get more exposure at that level like they did in the early to mid 1990s, when those titles actually meant something, those who held that title ended up eventually getting a shot at the world title of the promotion.

That still happens though. Many of today's main eventers held the IC or the US title before getting their first world title. Cena, Orton, Triple H, HBK, Jericho, Edge, Jeff Hardy (not in WWE anymore but still an example).... So the people who hold the IC and US title DO still get shots at the world title of the promotion at some point. The only thing you were right about was that those two titles used to mean something. Some of the guys who are in the IC and US title scenes today are going to eventually get world title shots later down the line, so to repeat myself.... that still happens.

 

[Blade]

Well I believe there was a multi-person feud just last year in the form of Johm Cena vs Randy Orton vs Triple H. Y'know, it headlined Wrestlemania 24? Yeah, that one. And fast forward a year later and we have Cena vs Edge vs Bigshow! Not to mention the US title feud mere months ago. Woops, someone has egg on their face now.

But to explain to you why there's very few multi-person feuds; well, they're tricky. You have to somehow book 3 or 4 people to all look strong with a chance of winning the title. That can be pretty hard to do. And now WWE is in a time where they're building new stars. That's done 1 wrestler at a time. If the John Cena/ Sheamus feud was actually, let's say, John Cena vs Sheamus vs The Miz, then one midcarder would come off looking stronger than the other, which would cost the other star.

So at the moment, there can't be multi person main event feuds because most of the main eventers are helping to put younger stars over and helping them up to the main event. Which is what any sane wrestling fan would want to see instead of a multi-person feud.

 

["Cool Guy" Jensen]

I never denied the fact that we have seen many multi-person championship matches lately. But I'm talking about multi-person championship FUEDS. The 2004 fued between Triple H, Shawn Michaels, and Chris Benoit is not exactly what I am talking about. It was more about Chris Benoit living his dream of finally becoming World Champion, Shawn Michaels beating the hell out of HHH, and Triple doing whatever it took to become champion again, while going through anyone.

Last year's Randy Orton vs. Triple H vs. John Cena feud is a bit closer. Randy Orton was having his "Age of Orton" reign proving he could defeat anyone. John Cena just returned from injury and was more intent on destroying Randy Orton, not exactly the title. Triple H wanted the title more than the destruction of anyone, but still. Their 2009 feud was still Orton as champ, but now HHH wanted retribution while Cena wanted the title.]

The closest WWE went with an actual multi-person championship feud was the ECW Championship feud between Christian, Tommy Dreamer, and Jack Swagger, earlier this year. Christian was the champion who was willing to defend against all-comers. Tommy Dreamer wanted to prove that he could win the ECW Title before his contract expired. While, Jack Swagger was trying to prove his claim that Christian won the title by cheating. All 3 of them had valid claims to why they should be champ, and I would have loved to see the 3-way fued between them last longer, had Swagger not been traded to Raw.

Also, I think WWE really dropped the ball with the United States Championship feud between Kofi Kingston, The Miz, and Jack Swagger. I thought they could have had a brilliant feud over the title for a few months. With Miz and Swagger both stealing the U.S. Title belt, before Kofi getting his title back, was a pretty good approach to keep the feud going. But, we just saw one match between the three at Hell in a Cell and it was over.

 

[Dagger Dias]

[QUOTE="Cool Guy" Jensen;1568829] I never denied the fact that we have seen many multi-person championship matches lately. But I'm talking about multi-person championship FUEDS. The 2004 fued between Triple H, Shawn Michaels, and Chris Benoit is not exactly what I am talking about. It was more about Chris Benoit living his dream of finally becoming World Champion, Shawn Michaels beating the hell out of HHH, and Triple doing whatever it took to become champion again, while going through anyone.

Last year's Randy Orton vs. Triple H vs. John Cena fued is a bit closer. Randy Orton was having his "Age of Orton" reign proving he could defeat anyone. John Cena just returned from injury and was more intent on destroying Randy Orton, not exactly the title. Triple H wanted the title more than the destruction of anyone, but still. Their 2009 fued was still Orton as champ, but now HHH wanted retribution while Cena wanted the title.] [/QUOTE]

I'm not really seeing what's missing here. HHH/HBK/Benoit in 2004 and Cena/Orton/HHH from both 2008 and 2009 are all examples of what a multi-person championship feud is. It is when more than one person is feuding for the same title. Yeah, the storylines come into play and make that more complicated like you said.... but these still were true to the definition of what multi-person championship feud means because each was 3 different people feuding for a title at the same time.

[QUOTE="Cool Guy" Jensen;1568829] The closest WWE went with an actual multi-person championship fued was the ECW Championship fued between Christian, Tommy Dreamer, and Jack Swagger, earlier this year. Christian was the champion who was willing to defend against all-comers. Tommy Dreamer wanted to prove that he could win the ECW Title before his contract expired. While, Jack Swagger was trying to prove his claim that Christian won the title by cheating. All 3 of them had valid claims to why they should be champ, and I would have loved to see the 3-way fued between them last longer, had Swagger not been traded to Raw. [/QUOTE]

Not exactly.... this too is an example of a multi-person championship feud because they are more than 2 people feuding for the same title.... but you are letting it get more complicated than it needs to be because of the storylines. Sure there needs to be a storyline, absolutely.... but I think you might be reading too far between the lines in this scenario as well as the others you mentioend before it.

[QUOTE="Cool Guy" Jensen;1568829] Also, I think WWE really dropped the ball with the United States Championship fued between Kofi Kingston, The Miz, and Jack Swagger. I thought they could have had a brilliant fued over the title for a few months. With Miz and Swagger both stealing the U.S. Title belt, before Kofi getting his title back, was a pretty good approach to keep the fued going. But, we just saw one match between the three at Hell in a Cell and it was over. [/QUOTE]

Now this one I agree on. I would much rather have seen this feud instead of all those random multi-man matches that Kofi had. Those matches were still exciting and fun to watch, but it felt like they were just thrown together randomly because there was no story. It was just Kofi facing (insert random number of challengers) for the belt. Now, there needs to be a storyline. Always. It just doesn't need to be complicated. It can't be non-existing either though because then you end up with stuff like Kofi's random multi-man matches. Better multi-person championship feuds need a storyline that involves all characters without it being too complicated because the fans will enjoy that more.

 

[giantwooly]

I think everyone is losing focus of the original question. Why aren't there multi-person FEUDS going on in the WWE. NOT multi person MATCHES. Basically he is talking about multiple wrestlers at once saying "I deserve to be champion, let's fight for it" Remember there used to be times where there would be a champion and two challengers. the two challengers would be fighting for the number 1 contender spot. one would lose and screw the other person out of their match at a PPV. Then the next night on raw the person who screwed the other person get's a shot and get's screwed. at the same time this is going on the while trying to screw each other the two challengers are screwing the champion every chance they get. IMO this is the question that is being asked and requested to be answered.

Now if I may answer that question. I believe that the Multi-Person feuds that happened were when WWE was TRYING to entertain us. Now that they don't have to try as hard it's probably more of a hassle than it's worth to them to try and book these. While I agree that the multi-person feuds added importance to the championships I think they were done away with simply because it's a hassle to book them.