Wrestling Tournaments suck...seriously

[Slyfox696]

It always amazes me how everyone wants to see a tournament for this or that. Has anyone ever actually watched a show where a tournament is the basis for the show? It sucks. It's boring, and you inevitably end up with guys working two or three times that don't deserve to be on even once.

Not only that, it gets tiring seeing the same guys wrestle multiple times. And yet, if you go in the WWE section, you'll see people wanting a tag tournament for new tag champions. My question is...why? Singles tournaments are bad enough, do we really want a bunch of shitty tag matches with shitty wrestlers over a belt that no body cares about? It boggles the mind how people love wrestling tournaments, when all they do is suck.

So, discuss. Do you like tournaments in wrestling, or are you smart and think they are a waste of time?

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Not including King of the Ring, I find tournaments to be incredibly boring. I don't see any reason for them with a #1 contender's match between two wrestlers would suffice. Take the tournament last week. I would have just had a #1 contenders match between Cena and HHH because Cena won his match against the MVP and HHH lost against Orton so those are the two natural choices. It just reminded me of playing Smackdown on Playstation and how they did their rankings.

Regarding King of the Ring, I don't know whether I prefer it to be a pay-per-view or a three hour RAW. The only time I know when a KOTR winner was granted a title shot at Summerslam was 2003 with Brock Lesnar. But since you have the Money In The Bank I don't know if they are willing to go back to that.

 

[Uncle Sam]

People suggest them because it's quicker than thinking an actual storyline. Personally, I like "Beat the Clock" Challenges. It has the same effect, just much quicker.

What about tournaments set over a number of weeks or mini-tournaments like the one on Raw?

 

[Big Sexy]

I don't mind tournaments when the matches are spread out over a few weeks, but I'm not a big fan of tournaments when the same guys are wrestling multiple matches in the same night. When it all takes place in one night the matches just get progressively worse. When it comes to seeing the finals of a tournament you want to see the two best guys have a great match, but instead you get two tired guys that end up putting on a fairly boring match. So if the tournament is spread out with a round each week they are ok, but when it's all in one night I'm not a big fan.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

People suggest them because it's quicker than thinking an actual storyline. Personally, I like "Beat the Clock" Challenges. It has the same effect, just much quicker.

What about tournaments set over a number of weeks or mini-tournaments like the one on Raw?

I do like the Beat the Clock challenge because it's quicker and is more intriguing because it's not a certainty who is going to win in the quickest time.

I would rather have a tournament over several weeks rather than the one on RAW. I'd prefer 8-man tournaments with a match a week but there's so few RAW's between PPV's so make that two a week. Two matches a week in an 8-man tournament equals three weeks worth of matches.

 

[RVDgurl]

In general, a tournament does not spark any interest from me. I do find them boring because any tournament is usually built around the same 2 or 3 guys who get to wrestle too much anyway. As Sam already pointed out, tournaments are usually nothing more than an excuse for not coming up with some kind of compelling storyline.

 

[King Patrick Star]

I like tournaments and I would like it more if the winners were surprising to everyone. If they booked it where a favorite was knocked out in an early round, things could get interesting for the rest of the Tournament. Remember WM IV?? Of course most of you don’t, but half of you saw DVDs on it. That Tournament was great and when Hogan and Andre eliminated each other early, I thought, who’s going to win now?? All I’m saying is Tournaments work, but they would work best with a “WTF!?” at the end.

Savage winning at WM IV
Jericho winning at Vengeance 2001
Angle and Benoit winning the WWE Tag Team Titles against Edge and Rey Mysterio at No Mercy 2002
Eddie winning the US Title from Benoit at Vengeance 2003
Any of the King of the Rings for the most part

Point is, Tournaments can be a success if used correctly, just like anything else on the planet. If they stopped pushing the favorites to win and started using some “upsets” and surprises, this thread would not have even been started.

 

[Shocky]

I'm a big mark for tournaments. I love the fact I can see certain wrestlers wrestle multiple times in one night. The variety that a certain wrestler can bring to the table and show off is awesome. Blame the WWE and it's laziness of wanting to put inferior workers into tournament settings, that's where the Problem Lies. If you had your best workers in a big tournament, then it's interesting, but when you put mid to lower card guys, then yes, it doesn't work.

You get what you invest into it, that's the bottomline. If you put great workers in, expect great things (Bret Hart's 1993 run), you get mediocrity, you get the William Regals. I would much rather see a Tournament then another mindless Battle Royal.

 

[Slyfox696]

If they stopped pushing the favorites to win and started using some “upsets” and surprises, this thread would not have even been started.

Bullshit. This thread would still be started, because tournaments in wrestling suck.

Additionally, the idea that people want to see underdogs win tournaments is ridiculous. It's been proven MANY times that the NCAA tournament draws FAR better ratings when the big dogs are playing the Sweet Sixteen and above. The underdogs are good for a round or two, but when it's time to decide the best, people want to see the big boys. It's why Ohio State and Oklahoma always get BCS bids...people want to see them instead of Hawaii.

 

[King Patrick Star]

I didn’t say underdogs, I said surprise upsets. Let’s say Shelton Benjamin beat Triple H in a tournament final for a Title. You wouldn't say Shelton was an underdog, because he beat HHH twice already before. You would however say it's a surprise, because Benjamin beat the "unbeatable". I’m not saying have someone like Santino win a 3 round tournament by defeating HBK, Undertaker and finally HHH cleanly. I’m just saying throw a twist in there and SURPRISE!!

 

[Nate DaMac]

Bullshit. This thread would still be started, because tournaments in wrestling suck. Additionally, the idea that people want to see underdogs win tournaments is ridiculous. It's been proven MANY times that the NCAA tournament draws FAR better ratings when the big dogs are playing the Sweet Sixteen and above. The underdogs are good for a round or two, but when it's time to decide the best, people want to see the big boys. It's why Ohio State and Oklahoma always get BCS bids...people want to see them instead of Hawaii.

I don't see what NCAA ratings have to do with wrestling. If you wanna prove a point, go fish some wrestling shows with underdogs in tournaments ratings. Then I will be more inclined to believe you. I am actually with King Pat here. I don't need or want an upset win in the finals but it's nice to see one in an earlier round. Also I don't renember you asking if having tourneys was a good business decision.

 

[Miko]

I quite like wrestling tournaments, as long as they're spread over the course of a couple of shows and maybe a PPV. Like King Of The Ring used to be. That way you get your tournament and you dont have to see the same person wrestle 2 or 3 times on the same card.

A tag tournament wouldnt be bad either, if it was done in the same way. In my opinion it's pretty silly really to waste all of the matches in one night, a tournament is something that could and should be dragged on for a while, something that gets your lesser known wrestlers some screen time everyweek.

So I dont think that all wrestling tournaments suck, I just hate it when they put a king of the ring tournament on a 3 hour RAW and have William Regal the winner. I like Regal as much as the next guy but I have limits as to how long I want him on my screen.

 

[gd]

I actually like the idea of tournaments, but more like a King of the Ring tournament. I'd like to see guys that aren't main eventers wrestler a few times in one night so I can form a good opinion on them. I also like tournaments in general. While KOTR isn't the same as the NCAA tourney, it's still a tournament which sparks my interest.

However, tournaments like the most recent one on Raw are stupid. 4 people isn't really a tournament and the final was so predictable that a tournament wasn't necessary. All it accomplished was giving Cena and Triple H a couple of wins they didn't need so they could meet a week later. Tournaments shouldn't be used just for the sake of using a tournament, there has to be some reasoning behing them.

 

[Thriller Ant]

Tournaments work if they are done right. A one-night tournament with a bunch of midcarders will be boring because the crowd won't care, and those guys probably won't be able to perform multiple good matches in a single night. If the tourney is spread out, however, then it will work better. The guys can cut promos on each other, and in kayfabe, make a game plan for the next match. It also builds suspense from one week to the next.

I will admit, however, that if you are going to do a one-night tournament, Beat the Clock is your best bet. It only takes one round of matches, and adds the suspense needed to make a tournament great.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Tournament matches often suck. But so do most TV matches. At least Tournament ones have direction and they usually have an intresting pay off.

The Mania 4 tournament is a pile of shit from a match quality perspective, but it doesn't make it any less intresting.

 

[jmt225]

WCW Mayhem 1999 was WCW's last great pay-per-view, in my opinion, and that show was built around a tournament. Benoit vs. Hart from that night was all kinds of epic.

So, that goes to show that a tournament can be good, but yeah... for the most part, they suck. There are only a handful of King of the Ring matches I've ever found worth a damn (which, ironically, all involve Bret Hart, with the exception of Owen Hart vs. the 123 Kid from the 1994 King of the Ring, which remains to this day the greatest match I've ever seen under 5 minutes long). The rest of them just have such a bad pace due to time constraints, and the fact that the wrestlers try so hard to make their next match different from the one before.