Why do people care about the 30 day rule?

[Trill Co$by]

For starters, let me say that this isn't entirely about Dean Ambrose... though he's the most recent victim of this. But since practically the dawn of championships, people have been going on and off about the 30 day rule that apparently states champions have to defend their titles within that time or they get stripped.

But like, unless every championship match is aired on television, why do people even really care? It's not like we can go to every live event and see the defenses. The way I see it, the 30 Day rule is just like the automatic rematch clause. It worked once, and it'll work again... maybe not immediately, but someday.

 

[Softcore Holly]

I don't remember it being always there, if I remember correctly it was a 90's thing. In any case it's a good idea in general since we like seeing title matches, especially on PPVs since a good title match makes the card seem more important and thus helps making the show feel like it was worth paying for. And the whole situation with Ambrose shows why it was such a good idea in the first place, with his lack of title defenses the title itself lost even more value (like it had much before he had it) and now it's hardly worth caring about. Plus I'm sure we could all find plenty of PPV matches during his title reign that we would've preferred didn't exist and had Ambrose defend his title in it's place.

 

[Eddie Menuek]

I don't care about the rule in particular. It's just there for storyline purposes, which is fine.

Dean Ambrose's championship reign in particular is an issue, though, in my opinion. People can argue that the United States Championship hasn't meant much in the past few years anyway, but when you read about Dean Ambrose's reign becoming the fifth longest in the history of the championship, the fact that the championship hasn't even been defended on pay-per-view in nearly five months doesn't just devalue what the title means in relation to WWE now, but I think it verges on tainting the reigns that Ambrose is surpassing. It's a shame, because in years past the US and Intercontinental Championships have been useful tools for elevating midcard guys into main eventers, but at the moment that title is doing nothing for Dean when it's hanging from his waist and barely being acknowledged. I'd honestly rather they retired the championship.

 

[Kris Benwa]

I like the rule. It prevents guys from being able to take in ring hiatus with the belts or having long ass title runs with no defenses which at that point you might as well not be the champion and let someone else run with it and have meaningful feuds for the belt. They rarely ever enforce it which is stupid but then again this is the WWE universe where continuity is pretty much non-existent. If you're gonna be the champion you should defend the title at least once a month and if you don't then you should not be the champion it makes sense to me and it should be enforced unless there is a storyline not to. But then again there are storylines that could be used with the stripping of belts also.

 

[jholcomb22]

I don't think it's in the WWE rule book. If I recall, the only rule in the WWE rule book is that WWE can change anything at anytime to fit their needs.

The 30 day rule was used when superstars were chasing the championship and that champion was avoiding the challenger and any other superstar as well. It would seem, for now, nobody wants the US title. A lot of this is WWE not knowing what they are doing with the Shield, as it seems they are turning them face and, after teasing a split, it looks like they are on the same page like days of old. But with them not knowing what they are doing at this time, I wouldn't expect to see it defended until maybe Extreme Rules, unless they do split The Shield and do a triple threat for it at Mania.

At the end of the day, though, I think it legitimately gets forgotten and will go the way of the European Title.

 

[Dirk]

Ambrose's US title reign is further evidence that suggests that pro-wrestling belts are near-useless props and none more useless than the US title. This is why the title prestige threads that pop up every now and then make me laugh. The US belt isn't even going to be a big merch seller - no kid is going to buy that replica belt unless they have the whole set. Apart from the diva's belt, the US belt will be the very last replica title a boy's parents will buy.

Why the hell is the belt even on Ambrose? He doesn't need it, but not only doesn't he need it, it's not helping him in any way right now. It does not establish him as either the leader or the best one in the Shield (you can thank Reigns spearing the other team at SS for that), so what is even the point, unless they pull the trigger on the Shield's collapse? And that doesn't seem to be happening until possibly after WM. In the meantime, that belt on him means absolutely nothing.

In any case it's a good idea in general since we like seeing title matches, especially on PPVs since a good title match makes the card seem more important and thus helps making the show feel like it was worth paying for.

That would be infinitely better than having the belt on Ambrose now and him not doing anything with it. Any up-and-comer can get a rub from a feud over the US title, for example the PTP. Maybe people would've given half a crap about that feud if the US title was involved. If WWE feels it necessary for Ambrose to have the US title when the Shield collapses, I'd prefer he lost the belt to a guy they want to test the waters with, then win it back with his rematch a few PPV's down the line and the 30-day rule is the perfect excuse to do this.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

I don't remember it being always there, if I remember correctly it was a 90's thing.

Last time it was mentioned was when Sheamus beat Zack Ryder in a title defense and then announced he was taking the rules allow him to take the next 30 days off until his next title defense.

unless every championship match is aired on television, why do people even really care? It's not like we can go to every live event and see the defenses. The way I see it, the 30 Day rule is just like the automatic rematch clause. It worked once, and it'll work again... maybe not immediately, but someday.

I was upset when Rock won the title, beat Punk in a rematch and didn't have a WWE title match for the next 6 weeks. Del Rio at least defended it on live events, but Rock should have had the title vacated according to the rulebook.
Yeah, I know the rulebook doesn't matter anymore, but it just hurts believability when the champion doesn't even defend his title.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Title shots shouldn't be given out as easily as they are, which is why the 30 day rule should come into play. One title defence every month, with occasional exceptions.

 

[Tom]

I don't have an issue with the 30 days rule. I do have an issue with long reigning champions who don't defend there titles. It really gets on my nerve, especially when the commentary or the superstars themselves start speaking about how long they've held that title. Most recently Dean Ambrose and Cody Rhodes come to mind, but it's been going on for years.

I have a feeling that defences will come more often once Mania season is over with. I'm hoping the US title and IC title are used a lot more commonly, having the IC title just second to the WWE World title.

I'm also a strong believer that the World Heavyweight championship shouldn't be defended on TV, or if it is, it should have a build up and just not a random match. The World Champion should rarely compete on TV as well, so when they do, it feels special. That may be a bit of old school coming out of me there, but surely I'm not the only one who thinks that?

 

[haydo 434]

I feel that at least every two weeks a title should be defended.
It keeps the crowd interest at a high and it gives greater prestige to the title, also the person defending is made to look more of a man by having the courage to defend on a more frequent basis.
It would also bring about a certain portion of freshness, nxt talent could step up to answer the call of a challenge, it would also be a good way to bring back a returning wrestler.

 

[FlairFan2003]

The 30 Day Rule was never a part of WWE, officially. Back in the 80s every promotion acted like they had one and occasionally wrestling magazines like Pro Wrestling Illustrated would point out how often WWE ignored it for Hulk Hogan (most of his time as champion Hogan would only do a few shows per month, weekends only, and in fact often wrestled his match right before intermission even though he was the main event so he could leave the arena early). Hogan often went nearly two months without a title defense in various stretches, which was never acknowledged on TV by WWE.

Obviously having champions who could wrestle on a more consistent basis made WWE able to utilize the rule other promotions had used for years for storyline purposes in the 90s and beyond.

I vividly remember the 30 day rule being utilized as a storyline device in the NWA in the 80s, in fact it was acknowledged that the NWA gave Ric Flair permission to skip the 30 day rule in 1989 so he wouldn't have to vacate the World Title while recovering from injuries suffered in a post match attack vs Terry Funk, although the special dispensation would only take Flair for two months, if he couldn't return (ironically in time for the Great American Bash PPV) he would have to forfeit the title.

WWE hasn't really had any champions in a long time who didn't abide by the rule. Hogan's last title run was so short it barely lasted 30 days.

 

[FlairFan2003]

As far as why should it (or something like it) exist it's simple...If titles are not defended they are not important, you cant book storyline around a title that is never contested, especially in this age of monthly PPV and weekly live TV (much different than the 70's & 80s with only one or two PPV like events per year and mostly jobber matches on pre taped TV programs). Related to that WWE isn't making money off a title that isn't contested (unless they make the fact the champ wont defend a storyline device of course).

 

[Eddie Menuek]

The 30 Day Rule was never a part of WWE, officially. Back in the 80s every promotion acted like they had one and occasionally wrestling magazines like Pro Wrestling Illustrated would point out how often WWE ignored it for Hulk Hogan (most of his time as champion Hogan would only do a few shows per month, weekends only, and in fact often wrestled his match right before intermission even though he was the main event so he could leave the arena early). Hogan often went nearly two months without a title defense in various stretches, which was never acknowledged on TV by WWE.

Obviously having champions who could wrestle on a more consistent basis made WWE able to utilize the rule other promotions had used for years for storyline purposes in the 90s and beyond.

I vividly remember the 30 day rule being utilized as a storyline device in the NWA in the 80s, in fact it was acknowledged that the NWA gave Ric Flair permission to skip the 30 day rule in 1989 so he wouldn't have to vacate the World Title while recovering from injuries suffered in a post match attack vs Terry Funk, although the special dispensation would only take Flair for two months, if he couldn't return (ironically in time for the Great American Bash PPV) he would have to forfeit the title.

WWE hasn't really had any champions in a long time who didn't abide by the rule. Hogan's last title run was so short it barely lasted 30 days.

I'm not so clued up on whether or how often they used it before the late '90s, but recently I think it's typically only been acknowledged as a stipulation to take the belt from somebody who's suffered a legitimate injury. I think I remember Edge vacating the Intercontinental Championship at a point due to injury, with the 30 day rule cited as the reason that he had to drop it.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

For the most part, I don't really give a crap about the 30 Day Rule and I don't think your average fan does either. I do feel WWE should have Ambrose defend his title more than they have. At the same time, Ambrose has defended the title a lot at house shows. Back in the old days, nearly every title match took place at house shows. That's where most title changes took place as well. Title matches on television used to be extremely rare, but as WWE has such a strong television presence, there's the line of thinking that title matches should happen on television or ppv often. As a result, it goes hand in hand with all the various "titles don't mean shit anymore" complaints. Then again, to a lot of internet fans, nothing is as good as it used to be or should be, so it's business as usual.

 

[GeneralKarim]

For me, in order for me to care about that rule, I would have to care about the championships, which I don't.

Look at the most recent case, Dean Ambrose.I seriously couldn't care less about his championship reign.I enjoy him as a character in and outside of the ring.For some years now, mid-card title runs have been nothing but bad luck for wrestlers.

IC and US titles; people say that WWE needs them cause we have too many superstars and that what would they do if they only had 1.Well have they really done anything with them for the past few years?Did it really seem like we needed them?Is the Cesaro we have now, a result of his US title reign?Or because of strong booking?hmm

The last time for me the IC title was really interestin - I may be forgetting something I dunno - was when the disfigured-psycho Cody Rhodes was wearing it.That is the last time I remember giving a bit of a crap about it.

The last time US title was relevant to me this past few years...tbh I cant even remember...there might have been..but it's so forgettable that I just cant care to remember.

Atm the Tag Titles are way above the two mid-card ones.Way above.

Big E isnt doing anything but random matches and again, I couldn't care less if he defended or not or if he lost it or won it, because its about strong booking and just winning matches in my eyes isnt strong booking.

I really do hope they unify the titles and get it over with.Cause I'm sick and tired of seeing the belts and the wrestlers wearing them just being wasted.Cause its way better to be the number 2 champion in the WWE than to be number 3 or 4 and be booked like shit.

But anyway, w/e happens I dont really care.Keep them like this, dont keep them like this.They will never matter unless they put serious effort in them.

 

[Vintage]

The 30 day rule is tradition. it's one of the foundations of wrestling and lets be brutally honest here

being booked for 1 title defense a month, is not asking much of the creative team.. unless you are employed by WWE Corp.
Only when it's due to champion injury, or part of a running gag the talent and crowd are in on is it ok to defend it willy nilly. Anything else at least to me says they didn't place the prop on the right person

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

The 30 day rule is a bad holdover from the days of kayfabe, and in particular, the AWA and old NWA. It was only ever invoked to strip a babyface of a title so that said babyface didn't have to drop the belt to a heel. 30 day rule clauses rank up there with Dusty finishes, IMO. Wrestling is scripted...we all know this. There is no contender ranking. There is no 30 clause for title defenses. These are constructs that were put in place to mirror other sports in a time that wrestling still pretended to be sports, at least in public.

 

[healyz84]

30 day rule is around for logistical sense. First off, it makes the champion defend their belt on a semi-regular basis, and not allow them to take long hiatuses. Secondly, in case the champion gets injured which will take longer than a month, it gives rationale to strip the champion of their title. Third, it should allow enough time for the challengers to face each other and in a sense line up, so when 30 days are up, there is a clear #1 contender for the title. In the older days, there were clear distinctions between competitors going for the mid-card title, and those going for the main event title. There was not a lot of cross-over, so a pecking order was important.

However wwe has made this rule obsolete. The only use for the 30 day rule is to have it for storyline purposes only. If a superstar decides to take an extended hiatus, they are probably not going to be champion when that happens anyway.

 

[JJ15776]

I don't think it's in the WWE rule book. If I recall, the only rule in the WWE rule book is that WWE can change anything at anytime to fit their needs.

The 30 day rule was used when superstars were chasing the championship and that champion was avoiding the challenger and any other superstar as well. It would seem, for now, nobody wants the US title. A lot of this is WWE not knowing what they are doing with the Shield, as it seems they are turning them face and, after teasing a split, it looks like they are on the same page like days of old. But with them not knowing what they are doing at this time, I wouldn't expect to see it defended until maybe Extreme Rules, unless they do split The Shield and do a triple threat for it at Mania.

At the end of the day, though, I think it legitimately gets forgotten and will go the way of the European Title.

I've never seen somebody be so right, and then so wrong, all in the same post.

You're absolutely right that the only rule is the WWE can do whatever the hell they want, whenever the hell they want, to tell the best stories. Why aren't we complaining about Undertaker and Kane breaking the laws of physics? That seems like a bigger deal than Ambrose breaking the 30 day rule.

As for The Shield, I mean...I don't even know what to say. You really think the WWE doesn't know exactly what they're doing and what they're going to do with them? It's called teasing. It builds tension, it builds interest, it builds suspense. Just because YOU don't know what they're doing, you think they don't either? Come on, man. You're better than that.

Yeah, I know the rulebook doesn't matter anymore, but it just hurts believability when the champion doesn't even defend his title.

Believability? Really? It doesn't hurt believability when Undertaker summons a lightning strike from the sky that hits the ramp right in front of somebody? It doesn't hurt the believability when somebody is thrown through a table and gets up and keeps wrestling a few minutes later? It doesn't hurt believability when two people are in a ring exchanging unchecked kicks and punches without ever bleeding or bruising, let alone any broken bones? It doesn't hurt believability when a wrestler suffers through a submission hold for a minute or longer without breaking a bone or tearing a ligament within seconds? There are a LOT of things in professional wrestling that are less believable than a champion going 30 days without defending his title. In fact, just about everything in professional wrestling is unbelievable when it comes down to it.

The 30 day rule is a bad holdover from the days of kayfabe, and in particular, the AWA and old NWA. It was only ever invoked to strip a babyface of a title so that said babyface didn't have to drop the belt to a heel. 30 day rule clauses rank up there with Dusty finishes, IMO. Wrestling is scripted...we all know this. There is no contender ranking. There is no 30 clause for title defenses. These are constructs that were put in place to mirror other sports in a time that wrestling still pretended to be sports, at least in public.

Bingo. I'm going to repeat what I said in the thread about the WWEWHC title unification, because it's just as true here. Title belts are PROPS. They're just like the crown Jerry Lawler wears, or the cowboy hat JBL wears, or the robe Damien Sandow wears, or the flags the Real Americans carry. They're props. They don't actually signify anything. That time has long passed, and it is never coming back. People who want title belts to have meaning are probably the same folks who want them to go back to four or five PPVs a year...it's called nostalgia. People romanticize the way things were when they were younger. Hey, I get it. I play old video games on Wii more than any current game. But times change. Professional wrestling is no longer treated like it's real, and it never will be again. That's just how it is. And with that goes the significance of title belts. That's just how it is.

If they don't have somebody defend the title within 30 days, who cares? I love the response that said if no guy can't defend the title every 30 days he shouldn't be champion and they should give the title to somebody who will. Umm, what? Wrestling is scripted. The writers decide who the champion is and how often he defends the title. I really, really doubt Dean Ambrose has been refusing to defend the title for the last few months. If they take the title off him, they're just going to put it on somebody else who won't defend it either. What's the point of that? Leave it on Ambrose until they find somebody else to give it to, and the appropriate storyline to go along with that.

The only time the inactivity rule can legitimately be used is when somebody suffers a legitimate injury and has to give up their title(like Cena, Edge, and Batista in recent years), though usually it takes an injury that will keep them out more than a month for them to strip a guy of the title.

The sooner people stop acting like title belts are more important than they are, the better off we'll all be.

 

[the green b@stard]

In my opinion the 30 day rule is simply one of the tools creative can use when it suits the story....
Wheather its used to force a cowardly heel into fight or to strip the title off of a face following an attack, both are tryed and true story lines.

I really dont have a problem with creative enforcing it selectively as long as contractory story lines dont happen so close together that it becomes difficult to suspend belief...


In short ok with a little creative licence on this one.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

Believability? Really? It doesn't hurt believability when Undertaker summons a lightning strike from the sky that hits the ramp right in front of somebody?

Theatrics don't affect believability. He's a guy playing mindgames. That's completely acceptable. Had he performed mindcontrol voodoo during a match, now that would hurt believability.

It doesn't hurt the believability when somebody is thrown through a table and gets up and keeps wrestling a few minutes later?

Um, no? In this specific circumstance, we're not talking about something purely kayfabe. The guy literally goes through a table and gets up. If he can actually do it, why would anyone have a problem believing what they're seeing?

It doesn't hurt believability when two people are in a ring exchanging unchecked kicks and punches without ever bleeding or bruising, let alone any broken bones?

Bruising happens all the time. Bleeding and broken bones happen occasionally. That's pretty fine with me.

It doesn't hurt believability when a wrestler suffers through a submission hold for a minute or longer without breaking a bone or tearing a ligament within seconds?

Why? Wrestlers are trained to apply their moves without causing long-term injury. They apply just the right pressure for it to hurt, and not to break a bone. I've legit tapped to the Figure Four before, without busting a joint.

There are a LOT of things in professional wrestling that are less believable than a champion going 30 days without defending his title. In fact, just about everything in professional wrestling is unbelievable when it comes down to it.

But just because you suspend disbelief for the contests, doesn't mean you have to throw your sense of thought out the window.

I can lose yourself in a wrestling match, but I can't be convinced of something that just isn't true. Ambrose can beat Kofi for the title and I'll be as excited as if it was a legit match, but if you tell me Dean went on to be one of the best champions ever, I'd call bullshit. Dean never defended the title. That's not something that will change, no matter how hard they try to get you to mark out.

 

[TheICChampion]

I think I remember Edge vacating the Intercontinental Championship at a point due to injury, with the 30 day rule cited as the reason that he had to drop it.

True, but what about Trish Stratus? She was gone for what, 8 months? She apparently took the Women's title with her, as it was never really even mentioned during the time she was gone, at least to the best of my recollection. Anyway about Dean Ambrose, I wouldn't mind seeing more title defenses, especially on Raw or SD, as it always seems a little more special to see a title defended on a free cable show. But overall I don't mind that he's still U.S. champion, especially since it seems that there's not really anyone else that they're willing to give that title to.

 

[Messiah]

Live events don't mean shit to television viewers. Live events are like practice shows, that's why they have mostly the same results nightly for weeks at a time, same finish and everything.. If a title is on someone, why wouldn't they defend it monthly? They should, they always have in the past. It just shows WWE's lack of investment in any of the championships. That's why people have a problem with it.

 

[Funkydr79]

I'm not as in to the 30 day rule per se, but I do think the US and IC titles should be defended regularly. I don't even necessarily think they should be defended at a pay-per-view. I would like to see each title defended each week on Raw (IC) and Smackdown (US). I think they should function like the TV Title use to. The title should be put on your "work horse" wrestler. The guy that can go out every week and put on an excellent match with anyone on the roster. You can still build angles around the title, but having it defended each week will make it MEAN something.

I also would lump this in with time limits. JR did a good discussion on why time limits should be brought back in pro wrestling on his first podcast. There is no sport out there that doesn't operate under some time constraint. It lets you have the option for a time-limit draw, and also indicates to fans the importance of the match. A 30 minute main event obviously has more intrinsic value than a 10 minute show opener. It also mimics slightly the UFC where all main events are 25 minutes and the undercard is 15.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[itbewilly]

30 Day rule used to be awesome for one reason and one reason only.

Heels... No one gave a damn about the 30 day rule if a face had the strap. Faces almost never declined a challenge anyways. The 30 day rule was great for heel champions to avoid certain faces.

Take into considering what a guy like Orton could do if he abused the 30 day rule. Deny Bryan a chance at title shot while giving shots to lesser opponents he was more expected to win against(Kofi,Ziggler,Christian). It can lead to some good story telling and help extend a feud for weeks/months.