what should main event the show to you? Bigger Stars or The Title?

[pepentorresHHH]

there are 2 different trains of thoughts.... closing the show with the biggest match on the card, and the other is finishing with the title match. Traditionally the title always closed the shows, but lately the bigger matches have ended the shows, from Taker Shawn Michaels 2 to the recent trend this year in which we saw the royal rumble, wrestlemania, extreme rules, over the limit and now no way out finishing with non title matches.... the last time the title main evented the show was the elimination chamber back in february and before that TLC.

Im torn in this matter.... on one side the biggest prize in this business is the title, but there are some matches and some superstars that are simply bigger than the title for example the rock vs cena. But unless its a rare occurrence, I want the title match to end the show.

Discuss....

 

[lowandmighty]

Yeah title match should end the show. Wrestlers who aren't going for the title are irrelevant. No one is bigger than the world championship in my eyes. Except for Hulk Hogan but every rule has one exception.

 

[midgensa]

This one is relatively simple actually.

The main event of ANY Pay Per View should be the most compelling match, period. Sometimes this is the Championship match, but other times it clearly is not.

Remember when The Rock vs. Hogan went on before Jericho vs. HHH for the Undisputed Championship? This clearly was a DISASTER. Remember when HBK vs. Undertaker completely stole the show from HHH vs. Randy Orton? This clearly was a DISASTER.

Saying "wrestlers who aren't going for the title are irrelevant" is silly. Why have ANY other matches if that is the case?

It would have been unbelievable for The Rock vs. Cena or Brock vs. Cena to be anywhere else on the card. THOSE WERE THE MAIN DRAW and thus HAVE to be the main event.

It is simple business.

 

[HBsam31]

As much as I want to say the title should close the show that just isn't the case. The most compelling match with the biggest stars should be the main event. It is after all business, and that is the best decision for business.

 

[RManske2]

I would say the biggest match (translation: biggest draw, money maker, etc.) should be the main event to end the show. If it happens to be the title match then great but one thing that WWE has been doing lately is having a title match to start a PPV, that doesn't make much sense to me for some reason.

 

[TimeIsWasting]

I personally think that the Title should be the main event. The World title is what every wrestler dreams of. I understand that there are other matches that may make sense to have as the main event. However, A wrestler shouldn't have the title if they are not in the main event. Only the elite wrestlers who are competing for the world title should be in the main event. I think the title not being defended in the main event is showing us what the wwe thinks of their champion or champions. All of this is just a reflection of how weak the WWE roster really is in terms of true world champion caliber wrestlers. Plus most of you whine and cry about the little guys not getting their chance. They have gotten there chance and they are mid-card world champs. Lol. I can't believe I just said mid-card champs. Or even opening shows with the world title on the line. It's sad.

 

[braveh]

The bigger stars.

Say it's a WWE PPV, then I'm going to be interested in at least 3 matches (2 title matches and the main event)

If it's a TNA PPV I'm going to be into at least 2 matches.

 

[lowandmighty]

I hate all this talk from people about " its business that's why the championships not in the main event, cause its business"
Give me a break! Go and suck a giant cock and swallow! That's one of the piss-weakest things any fan could say. I'm a fan so I don't give a shit about business what I give a shit about is seeing the guy who's supposed to be champion in the main event and seeing the people I like win.
I could care less about fucking business I don't care if the company goes broke as long as I get what I want as a wrestling fan especially when I'm not getting any of the fucking profits!!
The belt should be the main event.

 

[Dagger Dias]

The World Championship match needs to be last. Flair even said so himself a couple of years ago when he had the opportunity to close Wrestlemania 24 but he thought that the two world title matches needed to go on after him. Dream matches are an amazing experience, but the world titles truly should close the show unless there is an extreme circumstance when there is a dream match on the card so huge that it HAS to go on last. Taker VS Michaels, Cena VS Rock, for example. Those going on last made sense. Cena VS Big Show or Johnny do not.

If the wrestler holding the federation's top belt is not closing the shows, how does that make the champion or the belt look? Less relevant. If a wrestler is (kayfabe) the best in the world when he holds the top belt, he needs to be booked as such. I was upset at the fact that Punk's triple threat match did not close the last PPV. It should have. The longer things like this happen then the less important the belt(s) will seem and the less credible the wrestler(s) will seem. World title matches should close the show 99% of the time, only rare HUGE dream matches should be booked as main events.

 

[ヒュー　G.　レックション]

Well in my honest opinion the title match should always be the bigger match. If it's not I think that is a result of bad booking. What's wrong with putting Punk and Bryan after Cena and Big Show? Would there really be less buys on the PPV?

The only exception to this is Legend vs Legend matches. Rock vs Hogan and Rock vs Cena I believe were bigger than the title matches for reasons I'm sure I don't need to explain. However I don't think Taker vs HBK 2 should've mainevented, it was not a "dream match" the two had faced before on other occasions. I don't consider either man, or the Streak, bigger than the world title.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

If the wrestler holding the federation's top belt is not closing the shows, how does that make the champion or the belt look? Less relevant. If a wrestler is (kayfabe) the best in the world when he holds the top belt, he needs to be booked as such. I was upset at the fact that Punk's triple threat match did not close the last PPV. It should have. The longer things like this happen then the less important the belt(s) will seem and the less credible the wrestler(s) will seem. World title matches should close the show 99% of the time, only rare HUGE dream matches should be booked as main events.

1. Becoming champion doesn't automatically mean you're the best in the world. I think guys like Swagger and Khali can attest to that.

2. Let's say that next month Santino wins the world title. Would you have him go on last on a PPV even though there may be a bigger and more important on that same event? I know I wouldn't.

 

[Dagger Dias]

1. Becoming champion doesn't automatically mean you're the best in the world. I think guys like Swagger and Khali can attest to that.

The best in the world in real life, absolutely not. Within kayfabe, however, the World/WWE/TNA Champion is the best in the world. That's what being the top champion in the federation means. Why put the belt on someone if they are not meant to be the top guy and the main attraction of that particular event? It devalues both the belt and the wrestler if a world title holder does not close a show.

2. Let's say that next month Santino wins the world title. Would you have him go on last on a PPV even though there may be a bigger and more important on that same event? I know I wouldn't.

They could put the championship on one of the guys Ryback has been squashing, it would still need to go on last unless there was a HUGE dream match on the same card. Cena facing Big Show or Johhny should not have gone on after the world title. Punk is (kayfabe) the best in the world right now and he should be booked as such. I won't even START on Sheamus opening shows.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

The match that garners the most interest to the event at hand should main event the show not the title (although often both are 1 in the same).

Lets take an event where the title did close out the show, Wrestlemania 18. Now HHH vs. Jericho for the title closed out the show but that match did not garner the most interest and didn't sell tickets, Hogan vs. The Rock did. Now both Jericho and HHH have went on record saying that they didn't want to go on last and they shouldn't have went on last. They may have closed the show but they weren't the real main event, Hogan vs. Rock were.

Because of this most of the fans were burnt out and ready to go home after that match because it was the match everyone wanted to see. HHH vs. Jericho was a really good match but the ending just felt a little flat after watching Hogan and Rock do their thing.

Now take WM 26 and 28. In these cases the title wasn't on the line but the match that everyone wanted to see was the main event (HBK vs. Taker II and Rock vs. Cena). In both cases it was smart to put both these matches on last. They were the matches people wanted to see most, they garnered the most interest and were the true main events of the show. John Cena vs. Batista is in its own right a huge match, especially with the title on the line but compared to HBK's career vs. The Streak it was nothing. Lets take WM28 now, CM Punk vs. Jericho was also a great title match but compared to Rock vs. Cena it was nothing.

Just being champion shouldn't dictate what match goes on last because sometimes the title match doesn't deserve to be the main event and frankly isn't what the main focus is, especially in this day and age. Ending the streak is a bigger accolade than being champion currently. These days it feels like almost anyone can be champion, even guys who shouldn't be because the belt means nothing anymore. Just the title match being last wouldn't help that, you do that with meaningful title reigns and feuds over the title.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

From a personal perspective I want the match with the most compelling story to go on last. Unfortunately it just happens to be the case that the WWE or WHC championships haven't been the most compelling story since SummerSlam '11. The idealist in me would like the titles to mean more but they don't and I accept it as long as I still get entertained.

From a business perspective I think they should end with the match that is going to have the most interesting outcome and make people tune in to the next show.

 

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

I think it's hard to give one definitive answer to this question and you need to look at it from a case-by-case perspective. To be honest, a lot of the time the biggest star is the champion or is in the Title match, but when he's not there are many factors to be considered when determining what goes on last. You have to look at the storylines going into each match and analyze what has generated more interest, you have to look at the opponents and match types obviously, and you have to look at the finish. If one of the matches ends clean and the other ends in a DQ or some other bullshit, that's a big factor for me. You shouldn't end the night on something like a disqualification or countout. Also, if you have a huge swerve for a finish to a match, you might want to put that on last to generate interest in the next show, and leave people with some sort of cliffhanger. Location can also play a factor, as the show could be in a wrestler's home town or something like that.

Let's take Extreme Rules as an example. On one hand you had Punk/Jericho for the WWE Title and on the other you had Cena/Lesnar in Lesnar's return match to the WWE. Both matches were no disqualification. The event was in Chicago so that's a point for the Punk match along with the fact that the Title is at stake. However, the hottest angle going at the time was Lesnar's return to the WWE, and Cena of course is the biggest star in the company, and just headlined the biggest WrestleMania of all time with the Rock. So it was definitely understandable for the Cena match to go on last in that case. But that is merely one case, it varies from event to event, match to match.

 

[BigThunder]

The title, except for special events.

Of course the latter is subjective. Undertaker/HHH is special. Rock/Cena is special. Cena/Lesnar is special. Cena/Show is not special, even when McMahon returns after a long absence.

 

[LSN80]

The best in the world in real life, absolutely not. Within kayfabe, however, the World/WWE/TNA Champion is the best in the world. That's what being the top champion in the federation means. Why put the belt on someone if they are not meant to be the top guy and the main attraction of that particular event? It devalues both the belt and the wrestler if a world title holder does not close a show.

For a prolonged period of time, yes. I don't think the argument can even be made that Punk vs Jericho at either Wrestlemania or Extreme Rules should have closed the show over Rock/Cena, or Cena/Lesnar. In both cases, you simply had bigger stars in more heavily hyped matches, while neither of the championship matches(both of them) had been presented with half of the fanfare that the Cena matches had been given.

And there are times where a belt is put on a guy as a test run, to see how they do with the opportunity. Jack Swagger in 2010 and Daniel Bryan are recent examples of this, relatively unproven guys within a main event landscape who were given title runs. But sine they were champion, should they have been main eventing PPV's? Absolutely not. Those places go to the bigger stars who are more established and have shown they can draw.

There is an inherent danger of not having your top champion in the main event slot for a prolonged period of time, however. It's been 6 PPV's since the WWE Champion, CM Punk, has main evented a PPV. The WWE Championship is generally regarded as being the top belt within the company, yet Punk hasn't closed a show in 2012. In those cases, it's saying that certain people, in this case, John Cena, is bigger then the championship. And by putting a titleless Cena in the main event against men such as Kane, John Laurinitis and Big Show simply points to Cena and what he's doing as being more important then anything going on in the company.

In this scenario, balance is the best thing possible, for all involved. Cena is undoubtably the top draw, but that doesn't mean people are necessarily purchasing a PPV first and foremost to see him face Kane, a GM, or Big Show. In order to avoid devaluing the top championship, it needs to be presented as the focal point of shows more. It sends the message that the champion is important, the title is important, and the title defense is important. It's not as if it's being pushed down the card, as it's still been in the semi-main event slot, but there needs to be that balance where the champion and the defense of the title needs to be in the main event slot. Right now, WWE isn't finding that balance, and the "B" level PPV's are suffering somewhat as a result.

They could put the championship on one of the guys Ryback has been squashing, it would still need to go on last unless there was a HUGE dream match on the same card.

Would you really tune in for a joke of a champion to be main eventing a PPV? I know I wouldn't. The man carrying the championship is more important then the championship itself, and in this scenario, it wouldn't take much of a match to top a jobber with the World Title championship match. You'ld have bigger issues of the title and the PPV both being devalued if you stuck it in the main event in this scenario.

Cena facing Big Show or Johhny should not have gone on after the world title. Punk is (kayfabe) the best in the world right now and he should be booked as such. I won't even START on Sheamus opening shows.

Again, it's about balance. In the cases of both OTL and NWO, the angles with Cena/Laurinitis and Cena/Show were the biggest ones on TV heading into the PPV, which creates a bigger issue: Do you take the biggest angle and stick it in a lesser spot on the card just because the title should be presented as most important? In these cases, it's on creative for not taking what's been a compelling dynamic between Punk/Bryan/Kane and AJ and not presenting that as the main event in segments on Raw. Since the feud has been booked as a secondary one to the Cena feuds, it's hard to justify putting it over the Cena matches on PPV.

But again, it's about balance. The WWE Title has been devalued somewhat during Punk's current reign as champion, and it's not because Punk is champion. It's because Punk as champion hasn't been presented as the main event on TV in some time, and hasn't been featured in the main event in 2012. He has in the past, so there's no reason he shouldn't be currently. I understand big matches such as Cena/Rock and Cena/Lesnar bein given TV main event time to build towards a PPV main event, but Cena/Laurinitis or Cena/Big Show? Not so much.

Sometimes it's as simple as that. The way the feud is presented on TV is often going to determine it's place on the PPV card. Feature the champion and the championship feud in the main event on TV more, and it's much easier to put it in the main event spot on PPV.

 

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

The title, except for special events.

Of course the latter is subjective. Undertaker/HHH is special. Rock/Cena is special. Cena/Lesnar is special. Cena/Show is not special, even when McMahon returns after a long absence.

Well, I still think there are very strong arguments as to why Cena/Show went on last. First of all the pay-per-view was No Way Out, and it was a Cage Match, so it makes sense that it would be the main event. Secondly, the Cena/Bryan/Kane match was a continuation of a storyline, whereas the Cena/Show match was the blow off of the main storyline that had been going on, the reign of John Laurenitis as GM. It's more exciting to end the show with the top heel authority figure getting fired and then put through the announce table then it is to end the show with a simple Punk Title defense. So I can definitely see their logic as to why Show/Cena went last.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

WrestleMania VIII: Randy Savage went on in the middle of the card to defeat the WWF Champion Ric Flair while the Main Event slot was filled by a double DQ match between Hulk Hogan and Sid Justice.

WrestleMania XI: NY Giant legend LT defeats the Beast from the East while Diesel had to settle for the penultimate match to defeat HBK.

WrestleMania XXVI: HBK's in ring career ends as Taker takes his streak to 18. John Cena goes over Batista for the WWe Belt in the penultimate slot.

Three examples showing that this year isn't the first time that a title match hasn't filled the prime slot... however, there are also examples of arguably higher profile matches not getting last on honours - Hogan vs Rock; Mayweather vs Show; Austin vs Rock (Austin's last match) for three.

Basically, there is no hard and fast rule. No PPV advertises it's set list - so (theoretically) no-one should know which match will go on last.

However, all of the exceptions here were MASSIVE at the time (I'd still have given Macho/ Naitch the nod over Hogan/ Justice though) and many of the Cena matches that have been booked over Punk's WWe defenses have been far from that distinction - yes, Rocky in Miami definitely fits the bill and, arguably, Brock but Show? Laurentitis? Kane? A throwaway tag match that wouldn't look out of place on RAW?

Punk's reign is worrying - it is secondary to whatever Cena may be up too and, worse still, it falls further down the totem poll if Trips becomes a feature. The implication is terrible but clear, the WWe Title only matters when John Cena deems it worthy of his undivided attention.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Should bigger stars, or the Title main event the show...?

It used to be that only the BIGGEST stars held or fought for the title in the first place, rendering this discussion kind of moot. But that's no longer the case; partly because WWE can't seem to build legitimate stars, and partly because the fans are getting bored quicker these days. When Hogan held the WWF Championship, which was pretty much all the time, you can bet that his match was going to be the "Main event". That's not necessarily to say it was the last match on the card, because sometimes they'd let guys like Bret Hart or other quicker, technical guys send a crowd home happy, but Hogan was always the "main event". And when Hogan WASN'T holding the belt -- a rare occasion for a long time -- he was usually fighting for it.

It's all about what sells. CM Punk is the first guy in a long time to have that superstar effect with the fans, but he's still not John Cena. Take Extreme Rules for instance. I bought a $250 ticket to sit right behind commentary to watch CM Punk and Chris Jericho fight it out. That was the "main event" for me. But let's be real...that night was about Brock Lesnar and John Cena. They were the drawing power behind that card, and even in Chicago -- a real "wrestling" city -- there were at least twice as many kids with Cena shirts than there were Punk fans. And even the Punk fans started in on the Cena chants when the time came...

The WWE Championship's value has dropped over the years because of shitty title reigns and no-name guys getting their hands on it. I'm always happy for a young up-and-comer when they get a shot, but this idea that anybody can hold the company's biggest prize just annoys the hell out of me. Cena is WWE's biggest draw, and right now that puts him above the Championship. It's not about nostalgia or making a piece of metal have more value than we, as fanboys and fangirls, think it actually has. Punk as champion is still worth less to the WWE than John Cena, Brock Lesnar, and the Rock. And you know what? It's not the WWE's fault... We the fans are the people making that a reality.

 

[Skinsley]

The WWE Championship should be contended last at all times.
I make an exception for BIG retirements like Taker/Michaels 2 because that was a massive moment.
I can also let Rock Vs Cena roll on because this was a 1 year build.

But Big Show Cena? No, Not forgiven. This entire storyline, and plenty of storylines involving Cena before and most likely after, have not been as interesting or important as the WWE title. No excuses.....if Cena must have the final say on every show...then im afraid they are going to have to give the man the Title back. Because as much as I got pissed off with Cena being in the title picture all day long, and the inevitable toppling of Rick Flair's record looming. The title is the Main Event and most important story on the show bar none.

 

[Ringmaster95]

The championship matches should always main event. That is why I really hated Over The Limit. The main event sucked, and it made the title matches seem irrelevant.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I haven't read all the posts so no offense if I basically just copy what someone says. It's not intentional.

I think it depends on the situation. Sometimes, title matches should close the show and sometimes it should be matches featuring the bigger stars. As has been pointed out, there are times in which title matches have closed the show but haven't been able to match the interest or excitement generated by other matches. Sometimes, it's been the other way around. A company will make the wrong choice sometimes, it happens.

For instance, at the No Way Out ppv, I'd have, personally, much rather seen one of the World Championship matches close the show because Cena vs. Big Show in a cage just couldn't compare. I know that it was the bigger feud featuring the bigger star, but the reaction it got compared to the title matches was lukewarm. At the same time, however, Cena is a long term proven draw that's been a mega star for the better part of 10 years. While nobody can deliver an incredible match or an interesting feud ALL the time, Cena is someone that comes extremely damn close. This was just such an instance, however, it which it didn't come about. I enjoyed the program all in all, but I can certainly understand why it didn't particularly appeal to others.