|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Oct 21, 2013 15:04:30 GMT -5
Warning: This is a rant, but probably not going the way you'd expect.
I believe that wrestling fans place too much focus on titles. This comes out most often when people complain that the title isn't the main event on a PPV, something that has probably happened a bit more in the last couple of years than usual. Its normally along the lines of "Why is Cena/Orton/whoever in the main event? It should be the WWE champion." This specifically is what I have a problem with.
Wrestling, at the most basic level, is people paying to see two guys kick the crap out of one another. A title is simply a vehicle to make people want to see the guys fight - one of the best ever, as the story is timeless. Wrestler A claims he is the best because he has the title, Wrestler B claims he's the best and he'll prove it by taking the title off of Wrestler A.
But sometimes there are matches that people are more invested in than the title match. Why therefore should the title match still go on last? Surely the 'Main Event' should be the match that the fans are the most invested in? The title is ultimately one way for 2 or more guys to fight, but if there's a better way then there's no reason the title should go on last. It often does, because lots of the time the guys fighting for the title are the best in the company - but the title itself doesn't mean that it should be ahead of another match. The title has to be made important, not the other way around. If there's a match that the fans are more excited for than the WWE title match, the WWE title shouldn't automatically go on last, no matter how important you think it is. The main event should always be the biggest match, no matter what.
The two perfect examples of this are Wrestlemania X-8 and Wrestlemania 28. 2 great matches for the WWE/Undisputed title that are overshadowed by 2 truly incredible, generation-defining, icon vs. icon matches. One put the title after the huge match, one put the huge match last. Which one did you think was booked better for running order? Jericho-HHH suffered from being after the real main event, whereas Jericho-Punk was allowed to flourish knowing it didn't have to follow what was impossible to follow.
So basically... stop worrying about the title being devalued by not being the main event. The main event shouldn't automatically be given to the title. If WM30 has Bryan-Punk for the WWE title, and Cena-Undertaker for the streak, which should go on last? Cena-Undertaker every time, because it will always be the bigger match. People put too much importance on the title, and not enough on the best feud and match. After all, you're paying to see guys beat the crap out of one another - the title is one reason for that, but not the only one, and not always the best.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this - I expect most people will disagree vehemently.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brad on Oct 21, 2013 17:58:33 GMT -5
I get your point. But if the WWE title represents the "best the business has to offer" they should be treated as such. If the title is "the richest prize in the game" it should get that main focus of being the key event on any given card.
I get that titles are just props. But if we are supposed to believe that title is important it should be treated as such and not take back seat.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 23:38:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2013 18:20:45 GMT -5
I get your point. But if the WWE title represents the "best the business has to offer" they should be treated as such. If the title is "the richest prize in the game" it should get that main focus of being the key event on any given card. I get that titles are just props. But if we are supposed to believe that title is important it should be treated as such and not take back seat. well put and I agree.although Vince genuinely seems to have trouble defining where the title SHOULD take a back seat. HHH has been a victim of this twice......although theres no doubt in my mind Rock vs Hogan should've closed WM18.nobody gave 2 chocolate f*cks about HHH vs Jericho going into WM18 because Jericho(the 1st undisputed champ)was a spectator in the REAL feud:HHH vs Steph.nobody believed Jericho was gonna win.Vince should've gauiged crowd reaction to this in the run up to WM. although I doubt Steph would have allowed HHH to take a backseat to Hogan. |
|
|
|
Post by Brad on Oct 21, 2013 18:25:57 GMT -5
I get your point. But if the WWE title represents the "best the business has to offer" they should be treated as such. If the title is "the richest prize in the game" it should get that main focus of being the key event on any given card. I get that titles are just props. But if we are supposed to believe that title is important it should be treated as such and not take back seat. well put and I agree.although Vince genuinely seems to have trouble defining where the title SHOULD take a back seat. HHH has been a victim of this twice......although theres no doubt in my mind Rock vs Hogan should've closed WM18.nobody gave 2 chocolate f*cks about HHH vs Jericho going into WM18 because Jericho(the 1st undisputed champ)was a spectator in the REAL feud:HHH vs Steph.nobody believed Jericho was gonna win.Vince should've gauiged crowd reaction to this in the run up to WM. although I doubt Steph would have allowed HHH to take a backseat to Hogan. Obviously there are exceptions. But those should be VERY rare. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 23:38:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2013 18:31:49 GMT -5
yes they should.....but in todays WWE they are more common than ever.Vince and the braintrust have dug themselves a massive hole with stop/start pushes.they have created very few credible guys and the guys they have created?they seem to have no faith in them to carry a WM or even a Summerslam.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikey1974 on Oct 21, 2013 18:39:58 GMT -5
the differences between era's are obvious:
in the "olden days", or Classic Era's,what have you, a guy was used to get a Title over. only those wrestlers who were considered the best,or the most over,got a run with a Belt,especially at the World Title level.
in the current era, a Title is used to get a guy over. the mindset is that if you put a Championship on a wrestler,it will automatically make him a star.
... the value of Titles has diminished so much over the last decade / decade and a half or so. but,this actually started way back in 1992, when Hogan-Sid Vicious went on last at WrestleMania 8, instead of the WWF Championship match between Flair and Macho Man. and it actually happened at SummerSlam 92 as well,wit hthe IC Belt going on last,with the WWF Championship being defended at the midpoint of the event. while I agree somewhat with your opinion,I do feel like,if possible,the top Title should go on last,unless it's a really special event - like Hogan/Rock,Cena/Rock, Taker/HBK,etc. but it is a more accepted way of doing business now than it was in the past,because the WWE/WHC Titles have been devalued so much to be,as I said earlier,props used to try and get someone over,rather than something being given to a wrestler who is one of the best. so you have the potential for WWE/WHC Title matches that don't have what should be one of the best wrestler's on the roster in it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 23:38:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2013 19:28:24 GMT -5
But if the focus isn't on the titles then what are they fighting for and why the hell are they there?
|
|
|
|
Post by Brad on Oct 21, 2013 19:30:05 GMT -5
But if the focus isn't on the titles then what are they fighting for and why the hell are they there? Thank you |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 23:38:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2013 5:33:56 GMT -5
But if the focus isn't on the titles then what are they fighting for and why the hell are they there? fair point.again its something that Vince seems to have lost touch with |
|
|
|
Post by mikey1974 on Oct 22, 2013 5:39:34 GMT -5
feeds into my point - titles USED to be something to strive for,because to have one meant you were one of the best,either in the ring and mic, or your character was so over. nowadays,titles are just used as props to try and hotshot someone to be a star. just a storyline element,rather than a reward for learning your craft,working at it for years,and raising yourself to a level where the company/promotion you are with feels you can carry the ball and hold a Championship.
they SHOULD be what the wrestlers focus on,like bash said,and what the wrestlers want to strive for. but,again,they're just props now and mean pretty much nothing,so it's no real surprise to me that they've taken a back seat to other storylines. honestly,if WWE creative didn't feel that giving a Belt to someone will somehow make them an instant "star" (which,as we know,rarely works), I wouldn't be surprised to see them get rid of all Championships at some point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Oct 22, 2013 7:22:55 GMT -5
But if the focus isn't on the titles then what are they fighting for and why the hell are they there? The title proves you are one of the best right now, but the best doesn't have to go on last if there's something more interesting or captivating. If there's a really personal feud that's going on between two top guys and a standard WWE title feud, the fans are gonna be more interested in the first match. The title is important but it can't always be the biggest match of the night. |
|
Greensborohill
Main Eventer
CHAMPION
Joined on: Jan 14, 2007 14:44:44 GMT -5
Posts: 2,657
|
Post by Greensborohill on Oct 22, 2013 7:45:04 GMT -5
If the person holding the world title isn't trusted enough to carry the main event then they shouldn't have been champion in the first place. This is the classic definition of devaluing the title.
|
|
AV1
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jun 15, 2008 9:04:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,870
|
Post by AV1 on Oct 22, 2013 8:06:44 GMT -5
IMO the title is a prop. Even in the 80's when people held the title for years. Hogan was the number 1 guy, therefore he held the number 1 title. Such as Punk said in his dvd for Wrestlemania you have you're number 1 face vs number 1 heel for the title. The title shouldn't be used to get someone over someone has to get over with the fans (such as Bryan) to the point we want to see them champion so they can get the belt. Another example of the title being a prob for example is wrestlers such as Undertaker who don't need the title to look good, to sell their storylines or to remain over with the fans.
Problem is in the 80's there were several greats such as Roddy Piper who never got the title and in the current era you have wrestlers such as Edge, Orton, Tripl H and Cena who have a crazy number of reigns. WWE needs to get the balance between people who deserve getting the title getting the title and giving it to them to get over.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 23:38:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2013 11:39:48 GMT -5
I agree that there are VERY rare occasions where a non-title match is bigger than the world title.
These instances would include:
Hogan vs. Rock
Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker II
That's about it really. I'm sorry but Cena (when not champion) should not be main eventing above the WWE title JUST because he's Cena.
That is WWE's fault for making their title seem less important as it should ALWAYS have the best story.
|
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Oct 22, 2013 11:46:05 GMT -5
Titles are precieved as nearly worthless today because they are constantly taking a backseat to Cena and whenever a part timer comes back. For example, Punk held the WWE Title for 400+ days yet the title wasn't elevated much in the eyes of the fans because Punk was always taking a backseat to Cena.
Titles are only as important as the guy holding it is. Thats why the WHC is percieved as crap when guys like Ziggler and currently Sandow are jobbed for months before winning it. Jack Swagger won one match during his WHC run and the title suffered big time.
If the guys holding the tites were promoted as the best of the best, there would be no problem. Instead, we have guys like Curtis Axel and Dean Ambrose with the two midcard titles and no reason to invest in them at all. They have no storyline. They have no interesting qualities. Thus the titles suffer. Same with every other title.
It has always been my opinion that the WWE Title should be treated as the #1 goal of every star. Because it isn't, the WWE Title and every other title suffers big time. Now there are exceptions like when we get a once in a lifetime match like Rock/Hogan or a career ending match between two greats like HBK/Taker. Vince made the dumb mistake of putting the title fights on after those. In any other circumstance, the title fight should always been promoted as the top match and not some random match like Cena/Kane (Elimination Chamber 2012) or Cena/Big Johnny (Over the Limit 2012).
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 23:38:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2013 11:48:56 GMT -5
^
That.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 23:38:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2013 11:51:51 GMT -5
Having two "main" titles doesn't help either. We all as fans know that the WHC is secondary to the WWE title but sometimes I feel WWE flip flops on how they view the title. They try to build the WHC as a big deal but then have it open the show. Are they putting Cena into the WHC picture to make it seem more "credible"? Are they putting Cena into the title picture to make Del Rio seem more credible?
The brand split is practically nonexistent with superstars showing up on both shows so the need for two major titles is unnecessary. I understand that having a secondary major title gives some un-utilized superstars something to do, but I think WWE would be better off without it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 23:38:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2013 11:58:45 GMT -5
World title and US title need to go.
The roster is no longer strong or big enough for two world titles and two midcard titles. They could always bring back a specialty title such as hardcore or cruiserweight though.
WWE Chamiponship
Intercontinental Championship
Tag Team Championship
Specialty Championship (Hardcore, Cruiserweight, etc.)
Divas Championship
This should be the championship line up.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikey1974 on Oct 22, 2013 12:29:42 GMT -5
Titles are precieved as nearly worthless today because they are constantly taking a backseat to Cena and whenever a part timer comes back. For example, Punk held the WWE Title for 400+ days yet the title wasn't elevated much in the eyes of the fans because Punk was always taking a backseat to Cena. Titles are only as important as the guy holding it is. Thats why the WHC is percieved as crap when guys like Ziggler and currently Sandow are jobbed for months before winning it. Jack Swagger won one match during his WHC run and the title suffered big time. If the guys holding the tites were promoted as the best of the best, there would be no problem. Instead, we have guys like Curtis Axel and Dean Ambrose with the two midcard titles and no reason to invest in them at all. They have no storyline. They have no interesting qualities. Thus the titles suffer. Same with every other title. It has always been my opinion that the WWE Title should be treated as the #1 goal of every star. Because it isn't, the WWE Title and every other title suffers big time. Now there are exceptions like when we get a once in a lifetime match like Rock/Hogan or a career ending match between two greats like HBK/Taker. Vince made the dumb mistake of putting the title fights on after those. In any other circumstance, the title fight should always been promoted as the top match and not some random match like Cena/Kane (Elimination Chamber 2012) or Cena/Big Johnny (Over the Limit 2012). exactly! Titles today are used to give a guy prestige,rather than the old way of the guy giving the title prestige. it's not about elevating a guy to the point where he's worthy to hold a Title. it's about giving a guy a title with the hope it will elevate him. in the 60's,70's,80's and 90's, if you saw a guy as Champion,you knew he was special. now you wonder what a guy did to piss someone important off if he doesn't have a Belt. |
|
|
|
Post by mikey1974 on Oct 22, 2013 12:31:20 GMT -5
Having two "main" titles doesn't help either. We all as fans know that the WHC is secondary to the WWE title but sometimes I feel WWE flip flops on how they view the title. They try to build the WHC as a big deal but then have it open the show. Are they putting Cena into the WHC picture to make it seem more "credible"? Are they putting Cena into the title picture to make Del Rio seem more credible? The brand split is practically nonexistent with superstars showing up on both shows so the need for two major titles is unnecessary. I understand that having a secondary major title gives some un-utilized superstars something to do, but I think WWE would be better off without it. agree 100%. the Brand Extension needed to end years ago,and settle on one true WWE World Champion. |
|
