MrBRulzOK
Wade Wilson
Mr No-Pants Heathen
Something Witty Here.
Posts: 26,719
|
Post by MrBRulzOK on Mar 2, 2011 18:17:06 GMT -5
The World Series runner ups don't get a rematch the next month. The Super Bowl runner ups don't either. They certainly don't happen very often in UFC. The only reason they seem to have it is to make things easier for the writers, like people have said. I can sympathize with them a bit since from the sounds of things being part of WWE Creative is not a fun job, but that's no excuse for them to be lazy.
Honestly if somebody lost their belt clean in the middle of the ring then there should be no question about who the better man is. They got their shoulders pinned to the mat or they tapped out and admitted that they were the lesser man. There should be no dispute between who deserves to be the champion.
I could understand if they had lost via cheating or interference that they would deserve a rematch. Otherwise though they should have to go back to the end of the line and earn themselves another title shot.
What's wrong with building a possible rematch up months down the road? Wouldn't the issue draw much more money if it was given time to cool off rather than shoving it onto the preceding show where it's pretty much guaranteed not to draw anywhere close to the same amount of interest?
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319 
|
Post by mrjl on Mar 2, 2011 19:06:01 GMT -5
it needs to stay.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Mar 2, 2011 19:07:58 GMT -5
The World Series runner ups don't get a rematch the next month. The Super Bowl runner ups don't either. They certainly don't happen very often in UFC. The only reason they seem to have it is to make things easier for the writers, like people have said. I can sympathize with them a bit since from the sounds of things being part of WWE Creative is not a fun job, but that's no excuse for them to be lazy. Honestly if somebody lost their belt clean in the middle of the ring then there should be no question about who the better man is. They got their shoulders pinned to the mat or they tapped out and admitted that they were the lesser man. There should be no dispute between who deserves to be the champion. I could understand if they had lost via cheating or interference that they would deserve a rematch. Otherwise though they should have to go back to the end of the line and earn themselves another title shot. What's wrong with building a possible rematch up months down the road? Wouldn't the issue draw much more money if it was given time to cool off rather than shoving it onto the preceding show where it's pretty much guaranteed not to draw anywhere close to the same amount of interest? looking at the way fans react around here to any losses, no I don't think giving it time would do anything but have fans declaring "why are they giving this guy a shot now, they buried him when he lost the title." |
|
|
|
Post by Todd Pettengill on Mar 2, 2011 22:39:37 GMT -5
Santino and Kozlov didn't get a rematch ..........yet.......... |
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Mar 2, 2011 22:42:55 GMT -5
The World Series runner ups don't get a rematch the next month. The Super Bowl runner ups don't either. They certainly don't happen very often in UFC. The only reason they seem to have it is to make things easier for the writers, like people have said. I can sympathize with them a bit since from the sounds of things being part of WWE Creative is not a fun job, but that's no excuse for them to be lazy. Honestly if somebody lost their belt clean in the middle of the ring then there should be no question about who the better man is. They got their shoulders pinned to the mat or they tapped out and admitted that they were the lesser man. There should be no dispute between who deserves to be the champion. I could understand if they had lost via cheating or interference that they would deserve a rematch. Otherwise though they should have to go back to the end of the line and earn themselves another title shot. What's wrong with building a possible rematch up months down the road? Wouldn't the issue draw much more money if it was given time to cool off rather than shoving it onto the preceding show where it's pretty much guaranteed not to draw anywhere close to the same amount of interest? looking at the way fans react around here to any losses, no I don't think giving it time would do anything but have fans declaring "why are they giving this guy a shot now, they buried him when he lost the title." Exactly. "So thats it? He lost once and he's out of the title picture. UGH!" |
|
|
|
Post by RI Richmark on Mar 3, 2011 0:11:35 GMT -5
The World Series runner ups don't get a rematch the next month. The Super Bowl runner ups don't either. They certainly don't happen very often in UFC. The only reason they seem to have it is to make things easier for the writers, like people have said. I can sympathize with them a bit since from the sounds of things being part of WWE Creative is not a fun job, but that's no excuse for them to be lazy. Honestly if somebody lost their belt clean in the middle of the ring then there should be no question about who the better man is. They got their shoulders pinned to the mat or they tapped out and admitted that they were the lesser man. There should be no dispute between who deserves to be the champion. I could understand if they had lost via cheating or interference that they would deserve a rematch. Otherwise though they should have to go back to the end of the line and earn themselves another title shot. What's wrong with building a possible rematch up months down the road? Wouldn't the issue draw much more money if it was given time to cool off rather than shoving it onto the preceding show where it's pretty much guaranteed not to draw anywhere close to the same amount of interest? Baseball and Football have seasons. Wrestling does not. As for the rematch clause I say keep it. It's only logical for the former champion to get the first shot at getting it back. But, you only get one shot and if you lose you go can't gat another shot at the champion for 6 months. |
|
|
|
Post by punksdisciple on Mar 3, 2011 1:03:57 GMT -5
I don't mind it, since they use and disregard the RM clause as they see fit. Like someone else said, if a rematch clause is envoked, and the person wins the title in their rematch, the person who held the title shouldn't have the right to a re-rematch.
|
|
deancubed
Don Corleone
Playing League of Legends
Posts: 1,350
|
Post by deancubed on Mar 3, 2011 1:27:30 GMT -5
I'd like it if they only do rematch clauses in feuds where there is an official televised contract signing. It's not like we see contracts signed for every match ever, even though kayfabe that would be how they have to do it, and they don't.
So, the way the show is presented, only Championship matches have contracts at all. And if the contract signing is televised, then the writers should then be allowed to use elements of the contract as part of the story. Rematch clauses, fight stipulations, ringside managers, winning/losing conditions, wagers, etc.
If you don't have an official televised contract signing, then it can be assumed there's no contract at all for your fight, in which case the GM of your show makes all the decisions about these stipulations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bravo Echo November on Mar 3, 2011 2:12:14 GMT -5
Tweak it.
If the champion or #1 Contender lost the title match by means of illegal shenanigans then yes, the rematch clause should be used. Otherwise let the loser of the match become like the #2 or #3 contender, not a steep drop and they can easily work back into the title picture.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wade Barrett = WRESTLING GOD!! on Mar 3, 2011 2:15:00 GMT -5
i dont get y people dont use it as like a mitb thing example:
edge is out o here come sheamus sheamus 'i using my rematch clause' wins title BOOM!
|
|
|
|
Post by Fantozzi on Mar 3, 2011 6:04:11 GMT -5
i hate it and i'd like to see more variety in challengers
having the old champion wait for months to receive another shot would make the fact of remaining champion more important
today there's really no difference between the champion and his challenger, as the challenger remains the same guy for months
EDIT: immediate rematches should be possible only when one wrestler was screwed
|
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hurricane on Mar 5, 2011 3:49:24 GMT -5
I think the UFC analogy is a good one. Think about it: when someone loses a title, they don't get to say "yeah, I want my rematch next PPV," but at the same time, they are considered ahead in line, if not first for a title shot. I'd say, guarantee the title loser a rematch given they meet certain criteria, in regards to title length, or have them defend their number one contender's spot at one PPV at the very least.
The only people I'd say would get an immediate rematch clause are A. those who lose their titles in a crooked way, B. victims of the dreaded "MITB cash in", or C. those whom enact their number 1 contender's shot hours in advanced. Which means I don't mind if someone asks for their rematch immediately after (think Benoit after Summerslam '04), so long as it isn't just "I'm up and enacting it," rather, it's cleared by the GM in advanced.
|
|
|
|
Post by Session Moth is over on Mar 5, 2011 4:23:42 GMT -5
Get rid. Its just lazy and unimaginative booking. In just eight words you have pretty much said all that needs to be said. I agree. |
|
