MITB- ruining wrestlemania?

[Red 'n' Black Reggie]

so i had this thought during smackdown, and i was wondering if anyone got this feel as well.

i love the concept of money in the bank. the matches are always exciting, usually very dramatic, and give extra space on the card for people who may not otherwise get a big wrestlemania moment.

but watching the matt hardy/MVP match, it struck me that i didin't want either man to win. i didn't want either of them to be part of money in the bank, because they had more important things to do. then MVP qualified, and i actually felt dissapointed. here's why;

ever since last summer, they've had the whole "losing streak" angle going on. even though at points it sucked, it got MVP over. ever since he claimed he wanted the US title back, everyone is rooting for him. the entire summit of the space between last wrestlemania and this one revolves around MVP regaining the US title. he lost the belt to his best rival, and sunk into a new low, only to dig deep, get back to his best. if/when he wins the belt, it'll be his happy ending. it will be the pinnacle of this whole angle. the pop will be immense, and it's moments like that which are the reason wrestlemania is in place. that's the event where the big stuff's supposed to go down, and if MVP wins the title at backlash, or on some random smackdown episode, it's gonna reek of wasted potential, but unfortunatley that's what will happen, since him and the champion who he's been chasing for months are in the MITB match, where unless one of them wins it, they won't get the "wrestlemania moment" on par with MVP winning the title he held for so long.

same goes for CM Punk. last year's WM was his "breakthrough" moment, when he earned his spot at the top. over the course of the year, he did it all. tag champ, WORLD CHAMP, beat every challenge in front of him. the only remaining task was the IC title, and in his hometown, he finally completed the grand slam, and claimed he would stand and fight, proving himself as champion. again, the logical way for this story to continue is for him to fight at the biggest event of the year, against the best opponent he can find, one year on from when he took his first step to winning all the gold. but again, he's put in MITB, so he's likely to fade into the background, his only notable contribution being a fancy spot that has little significance. punk, like MVP, could do so much more, but he won't be doing it this year.

the list will probably go on as the other paricipants are anounced, and it's a shame because very sparingly does anyone other than the winner of the match really gain anything from the MITB match. both midcard titles are not being utilised this year (as well as last), because of this match. last year the tag titles weren't defended, because one of the champs was in MITB.

i was just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this. i love the concept and the match, and i'm sure the show is going to rock, but after all the MITBs after the first one, i've always been left with the same feeling i got after the inVasion angle: this was good, but i know that it could've been so much more. and i can't help but predict that i'll feel the same way this year.

[Jay-Jay]

I wouldn't say winning the US title is "More important" than winning the MITB, I think MVP will defeat Benjamin for the belt before Wrestlemania. Theres an AT&T video, that only subscribers can see, the feud isn't done yet.

[George Harrison]

Mar 7, 2009 7:56:23 GMT -5 Red 'n' Black Reggie said:

so i had this thought during smackdown, and i was wondering if anyone got this feel as well.

i love the concept of money in the bank. the matches are always exciting, usually very dramatic, and give extra space on the card for people who may not otherwise get a big wrestlemania moment.

but watching the matt hardy/MVP match, it struck me that i didin't want either man to win. i didn't want either of them to be part of money in the bank, because they had more important things to do. then MVP qualified, and i actually felt dissapointed. here's why;

ever since last summer, they've had the whole "losing streak" angle going on. even though at points it sucked, it got MVP over. ever since he claimed he wanted the US title back, everyone is rooting for him. the entire summit of the space between last wrestlemania and this one revolves around MVP regaining the US title. he lost the belt to his best rival, and sunk into a new low, only to dig deep, get back to his best. if/when he wins the belt, it'll be his happy ending. it will be the pinnacle of this whole angle. the pop will be immense, and it's moments like that which are the reason wrestlemania is in place. that's the event where the big stuff's supposed to go down, and if MVP wins the title at backlash, or on some random smackdown episode, it's gonna reek of wasted potential, but unfortunatley that's what will happen, since him and the champion who he's been chasing for months are in the MITB match, where unless one of them wins it, they won't get the "wrestlemania moment" on par with MVP winning the title he held for so long.

same goes for CM Punk. last year's WM was his "breakthrough" moment, when he earned his spot at the top. over the course of the year, he did it all. tag champ, WORLD CHAMP, beat every challenge in front of him. the only remaining task was the IC title, and in his hometown, he finally completed the grand slam, and claimed he would stand and fight, proving himself as champion. again, the logical way for this story to continue is for him to fight at the biggest event of the year, against the best opponent he can find, one year on from when he took his first step to winning all the gold. but again, he's put in MITB, so he's likely to fade into the background, his only notable contribution being a fancy spot that has little significance. punk, like MVP, could do so much more, but he won't be doing it this year.

the list will probably go on as the other paricipants are anounced, and it's a shame because very sparingly does anyone other than the winner of the match really gain anything from the MITB match. both midcard titles are not being utilised this year (as well as last), because of this match. last year the tag titles weren't defended, because one of the champs was in MITB.

i was just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this. i love the concept and the match, and i'm sure the show is going to rock, but after all the MITBs after the first one, i've always been left with the same feeling i got after the inVasion angle: this was good, but i know that it could've been so much more. and i can't help but predict that i'll feel the same way this year.

Personally, I agree. I love the concept of the Money In The Bank and enjoy it every year, but it also seems like almost the cheapest way out. I'd prefer it if the wrestlers going into it didn't have big stories and feuds leading up to it. I appreciate the fact that they have guys in there that will put on a brilliant and exciting ladder match that anyone can win, but in all fairness I agree with you and I'd rather see all titles defended on the biggest stage of them all, and not just thrown into a jumbled up match.


I think the Money in The Bank would be perfect for something like Summerslam, or Survivor Series. It could even create a new fued leading into wrestlemania that doesnt have as much time to fade away and lose heat as it would, Wrestlemania to Wrestlemania.

[SparkyPlugg]

Well it's certainly kept the IC title matches off the card for quite a few years. But I like the concept of MITB and it's produced some great moments, not only on the night but when it's cashed in later on.

[TheHeaney]

I love MitB but come on, guys like Benjamin and Punk have titles to defend

[George Harrison]

It IS a great match and I dont think anyone can deny that. It's exciting and, although a spot fest, it is genuinely on the better matches on the card.


It's just that it keeps titles off Wrestlemania, whereas they should pretty much be the focal point of the entire event.

[waffleofpower]

I'm pretty tired of it. If every year had completely different cast maybe it would be ok. But this year already has three of the exact same guys who were in it last year. And this is like Shelton's bazillionth time in.

[bradshawrules]

It should be done every 2 years and the years they dont do it, it should be a King of The Ring final getting a title shot at Summerslam or something?

[Zen411]

I hated the booking of it at WM23 the most. The Hardys were back together, Rated RKO were main eventers. They should have done Hardys vs Rated RKO. Plus after a banner year for Booker, he deserved a one on one match. Just seems like one on one matches are more memorable and historic. WHen someone has not really done anything of note that year, it makes sense for them to be in MITB. When they have had a career year, it stinks to have them in there. Unless they are winning, they can get lost in the shuffle.

[punkish]

I understand exactly how you feel, because I felt the same way when they announced that eight wrestlers would be in it this year. That's way too many guys to be involved in this match. And we already know that Punk, MVP and Sheldon could be used for better individual matches.

Money in the Bank should feature six wrestlers who have never won championships and are looking to establish themselves as superstarts. Under the radar guys looking to make a big dent. It would be a shame to waste potential MVP v. Benji & Hardy v. Hardy matches, and to waste Punk when he would have a great match with Regal.

I say let a guy like Jamie Noble compete in it, and Tyson Kidd, Evan Bourne, etc.

[parder]

I agree with pretty much everything you say, but unfortunately the problem with MITB is that it's become such a big deal to win in the way it can elevate people that you need enough wrestlers in there who have sufficient credibility to merit even getting the opportunity to compete for the briefcase. With 8 spots to fill that makes it a no brainer to book some of the mid card title holders in it, since unless it's a Santino-like joke title run, they are likely to have sufficient credibility in the eyes of the audience as potential main eventers. Maybe if they reverted back to 6-man match it wouldn't be so bad.

But even so, it's often complained in the IWC that WWE has too many belts as a result of the brand extension. I tend agree that it would be a good idea to have one set of tag belts for the time being, since there just aren't enough credible tag teams at the moment, but with the mid card singles wrestlers I don't think that's the case. If WWE really gave more of a crap about its mid card like they used to they could create feuds for both the IC and US title that people could care about and help more of those guys to get over, rather than the muted reactions you get from a lot of today's crowds until the main event arrives.

[Xander Crews]

They should have a rule that if you win a MITB match you can't compete in it again for 3 or 4 years.

Also current title holders (aside from the tag champs) shouldn't be able to be in MITB.

[parder]

Mar 7, 2009 11:00:58 GMT -5 punkish said:

I say let a guy like Jamie Noble compete in it, and Tyson Kidd, Evan Bourne, etc.

But are all of those credible future main eventers? I would actually include Bourne just as a wild card entry to make the match more exciting, but not all of those guys - you need a variety of people with credibility to show that this is something that lots of people dream of winning as their ticket to the top of WWE.

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

You want MITB to suck this year? Have Punk win again.

As long as the person who could benefit the most from it comes out of top, I'm satisfied.

[carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army)]

The problem is, they adhere very very closely to their formula, because Wrestlemania is about the only thing that people actually think is important anymore. And so the formula isn't focused on maximizing entertainment value or paying off angles, but rather just making sure everyone who deserves it gets a spot on the show. That whole ridiculous "wrestlemania payday" thing.

So like, MVP vs. Shelton would be a waste of time, because why not just put them in MitB? Same deal with Punk vs. Regal, because Regal can just be featured in this year's wacky backstage skit, anyway. Kane and Henry have been busting their asses all year and have name and loyalty value, so let's reward them with a spot on the big show!

Ass-backwards business, sometimes.

[The Ichi]

I think they should continue doing it until the time comes when the winner either cashes it on the same night or waits a whole year and cashes it in next Mania. After one of those have happened, you've pretty much gone every possible route with it.

[neilfrazier]

How about this for an idea......

MVP wins MITB, which in turn elevates him to a higher level than Shelton Benjamin. After the losing streak, he achieved much higher success which irks Benjamin. After all those years, he feels like he should be in the main event. For Backlash, it's title for contract. MVP puts his briefcase on the lane against Sheltons title winner take all.

That would make the buildup even larger to their one on one match, and truly cement MVP as an upper mid card talent.

[MAGGLE]

Mar 7, 2009 14:37:55 GMT -5 neilfrazier said:

How about this for an idea......

MVP wins MITB, which in turn elevates him to a higher level than Shelton Benjamin. After the losing streak, he achieved much higher success which irks Benjamin. After all those years, he feels like he should be in the main event. For Backlash, it's title for contract. MVP puts his briefcase on the lane against Sheltons title winner take all.

That would make the buildup even larger to their one on one match, and truly cement MVP as an upper mid card talent.

That happend excactly like that at Backlash 2006.


RVD vs Shelton Benjamin winner takes all

RVD won and became IC Champion and MITB

[Magician under the moonlight]

Will MVP in the main event even be balievable? I meanafter the losing streak and all it's going to be hard to buy it. Just saying.

[neilfrazier]

Just because MVP gets a bump doesn't actually mean he has to win anything. Depends of course on how over he gets and in ring improvement. He could get a bump only to become another Rikishi, who knows?

Since it has been done before, then of course it will happen again! My recent history on WWE is kind of hazy.