clifford
King Koopa
Shingo Takagi stan
Posts: 10,683
|
Post by clifford on Mar 2, 2011 14:19:38 GMT -5
The championship rematch clause is something I find very repetitive and is a staple of the lazy booking we've come to expect these last few years. It usually ensures that we have the same championship match ups three, sometimes four pay per views in a row.
Would you like to see it gone?
Or maybe tweeked a bit? For instance, if the champion loses their title, they can't get a rematch until after someone else has gotten a title shot. I know with such frequent title reigns these days this could become really confusing so if you guys have any other ideas to freshen up this feature of wrestling please state them.
Or maybe you find no problem with the feature?
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Mar 2, 2011 14:21:37 GMT -5
In kayfabe terms, it's simply not fair that they were the Champion before, they earned the belt, and if they lose the belt, they should have at least one opportunity to get it back. Now, I don't think they should have a deal where it's given right off the bat or whatever, but the wrestler earned his spot to get a chance to win it, he or she won it, and he or she should get an opportunity to get it back after losing it.
|
|
|
Post by turkeysandwich on Mar 2, 2011 14:28:20 GMT -5
I hate it, in that it's almost become like the Money in the Bank shot. As though, you can "invoke your rematch clause" anytime you want, even right after you lose it (see Corre/Cena&Miz.) I just don't like that you can have a match anytime you want, maybe I'm just old, but I like for the card to be set before the event starts. However, that never happens ever anymore.
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,581
Member is Online
|
Post by Bo Rida on Mar 2, 2011 14:31:56 GMT -5
I don't like the rule but I still went for the tweaked option, I think the champion should have to meet certain criteria to qualify for the clause, something like the length of the reign or the amount of times they defended the title. It would also be good if the GM can remove the rematch clause if the champion breaks the rules on too many occasions (or commits other offences).
|
|
|
Post by Vince's Torn Quads on Mar 2, 2011 14:32:24 GMT -5
Maybe have a no 1 contender tournament on every post-PPV RAW or SD after a title has changed hands, in which the previous champion is involved.
It doesn't really matter anyway, as if WWE wants the previous champion to get his rematch at the next PPV, he'll have it no matter what kayfabe baloney they put us through. I (like the OP said) would just like to see something other than the same 2 guys feuding over the belt for several months. WWE seems to think that having different gimmicked PPVs serves to freshen things up, but it really, REALLY doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by YellowJacketY2J on Mar 2, 2011 14:33:50 GMT -5
I say abolish it. I'd rather have the champion have to climb his/her way back up the cards in order to get another title shot. That way, you can prevent repetition and re-build the former champion back up. Especially if it's somebody like Cena. If he loses to say, Sheamus, he can let him have a good reign for a few months while he works with the upper midcarders. Then, when he makes it back to the top of the ladder, he can dethrone Sheamus or whomever has the belt and start another reign. Makes both parties look good (as long as done right).
|
|
clifford
King Koopa
Shingo Takagi stan
Posts: 10,683
|
Post by clifford on Mar 2, 2011 14:36:45 GMT -5
I don't like the rule but I still went for the tweaked option, I think the champion should have to meet certain criteria to qualify for the clause, something like the length of the reign or the amount of times they defended the title. I like that. It'd be great if a former champion could only invoke their rematch clause if they'd successfully defended their title, say, 3 times or more. You could have a little extra graphic under a champion's name during their entrance to keep score of this.
|
|
|
Post by Vince's Torn Quads on Mar 2, 2011 14:38:53 GMT -5
Actually, I think there should only be ONE instance where the champion gets an automatic rematch, and that's if he has fallen victim to a MITB cash-in.
|
|
Krazee
Salacious Crumb
Posts: 71,547
|
Post by Krazee on Mar 2, 2011 14:54:35 GMT -5
Santino and Kozlov didn't get a rematch
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Mar 2, 2011 14:55:39 GMT -5
I have no problem with it really.
|
|
|
Post by YellowJacketY2J on Mar 2, 2011 14:56:30 GMT -5
Actually, I think there should only be ONE instance where the champion gets an automatic rematch, and that's if he has fallen victim to a MITB cash-in. This makes a lot of sense. I think the rematch clause should be handled in this matter. If the champion got screwed, he gets a rematch.
|
|
Jimmy
Grimlock
Posts: 13,317
|
Post by Jimmy on Mar 2, 2011 14:58:39 GMT -5
My general stance is that it's okay to have a rematch on TV but it gets really tedious when you have PPV after PPV of the same guys still invoking their rematch clauses on each other (ie: Orton and Cena in 2009).
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Mar 2, 2011 15:19:07 GMT -5
Only if everyone gets one. Or it only lasts for a week.
|
|
|
Post by FUNK_US/BRODUS on Mar 2, 2011 16:27:54 GMT -5
Get rid. Its just lazy and unimaginative booking.
|
|
ratedXsuperstar
Bubba Ho-Tep
Is many bi things, but lingual is not one of them!
Posts: 508
|
Post by ratedXsuperstar on Mar 2, 2011 16:37:20 GMT -5
I like the idea of only one rematch, and I think there should be a certain length of time before the former champ can cash it in. Or he can only cash it in on the following PPV. And maybe let the new champ set any stipulations, if he chooses to.
|
|
|
Post by Nuke is Good on Mar 2, 2011 16:40:58 GMT -5
I'm surprised it hasn't been abused to the extent I imagined it to be.
Hypothetical Scenario:
Cena wins Title from Miz at WM Miz on Raw invokes rematch clause and challenges Cena for title. Later that night Miz wins. Cena on RAW then invokes HIS rematch Clause at Backlash or w/e it is now Cena wins at Backlash and the vicious cycle continues until a random screwy finish happens.
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Mar 2, 2011 16:55:40 GMT -5
I'm surprised it hasn't been abused to the extent I imagined it to be. Hypothetical Scenario: Cena wins Title from Miz at WM Miz on Raw invokes rematch clause and challenges Cena for title. Later that night Miz wins. Cena on RAW then invokes HIS rematch Clause at Backlash or w/e it is now Cena wins at Backlash and the vicious cycle continues until a random screwy finish happens. In that scenario, when Miz wins back the title from Cena, I don't think Cena has a rematch clause. Because I've never seen someone envoke any clause after they lose the title by the person they got it from.
|
|
|
Post by ptp2011 on Mar 2, 2011 16:58:40 GMT -5
I think it should only be applicable to Batista, if/when he comes back.
|
|
clifford
King Koopa
Shingo Takagi stan
Posts: 10,683
|
Post by clifford on Mar 2, 2011 18:03:47 GMT -5
I'm surprised it hasn't been abused to the extent I imagined it to be. Hypothetical Scenario: Cena wins Title from Miz at WM Miz on Raw invokes rematch clause and challenges Cena for title. Later that night Miz wins. Cena on RAW then invokes HIS rematch Clause at Backlash or w/e it is now Cena wins at Backlash and the vicious cycle continues until a random screwy finish happens. That's basically what happened with Cena and Orton in 2009.
|
|
Big L
Grimlock
Posts: 13,883
|
Post by Big L on Mar 2, 2011 18:06:38 GMT -5
Leave it as is
|
|