|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Dec 17, 2013 11:40:07 GMT -5
I get that you can't just have title matches all the time or they would devalue the belts and whatnot, but what is the purpose of having a match like Orton vs Bryan without putting the title on the line, especially if the champion would've retained anyway? I've never understood this. Wouldn't a title match be more likely to pop a rating or get the crowd even more invested?
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 10,990 
|
Post by Sparkybob on Dec 17, 2013 11:44:07 GMT -5
It's probably based on the philosophy that the WWE wants you to pay to see world title matches so they give you a taste of what it will be like in a non title match.
|
|
|
|
Post by bestthateverdidit on Dec 17, 2013 11:50:56 GMT -5
I don't think champions should wrestle unless the title is on the line. And if they must, they should have to leave their belts backstage. It makes no sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by sunnytaker on Dec 17, 2013 11:54:54 GMT -5
plus it's the usual "to show you deserve a title shot you must first prove you can beat the champ first." kinda thing.
seems like it'll end up being a DB/Orton/Cena triple threat in the end though.
|
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Dec 17, 2013 12:17:06 GMT -5
I can forgive the lack of world title defences on TV, that makes sense and it's not like they never do them, it's rare though. The thing is, they do it with all the belts. Why wasn't the US Title on the line against Punk in their singles matches? Why was The Sheild vs Cody and Goldust a non title match on PPV? Is getting a title shot such a bureaucratic nightmare that nobody gets approved?
|
|
