I hate title rematches.

[mrbananagrabber]

You know when someone has a title and then they lose it, and then they have a rematch to try and get it back at the next PPV?

I get why they have to happen, but man are they a drag. I mean, as good as Bayley vs Sasha II was, my enjoyment was dulled because I knew there was no was Sasha was getting it back. Ditto Kevin Owens.

Speaking of Owens, does anyone really think Ryback is getting the IC title back at Hell in a Cell? Does Nikki have any chance of winning the Diva's title back from Charlotte whenever this God awful feud continues? Nope.

Because of the nature of the business now and monthly PPV's I get why these rematches happen, but ugh. Such a chore.

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

I don't mind title rematches. I just hate that they're dragged out to the next PPV for no reason other than to fill time. Sometimes I think a rematch should be done on TV and then they should move on to the next feud already.

Also in the case of Owens/Balor and Sasha/Bayley (as groundbreaking as the women's main event was), it kind of bugged me that the TakeOver events were being headlined by people who should've already been done with NXT.

[Captain Stud Muffin (BLM)]

They have put themselves in a pattern of having to get through so much TV time that they got to drag storylines. A title rematch should be quick and swift unless you have other factors dragging the storyline along. The Cena US title challenge every week is fun but when he losses the title he's going to get his rematch at the PPV and someone gets involved and he's off to his next feud. WWE transition needs work but without that proper structure it's going to be hard to change

[Dr. Bolty, Disaster Enby]

I really hate when the title scene consists of two guys for months on end. I like it when a champion gets through challenge after challenge, not just having a huge chunk of his reign taken up with one repeated challenger.

[Deleted]

I wish the loser would take their time in taking their rematch sometimes. Sit back and let the new title holder defend the belt and get worn out by it, meanwhile studying them and formulating a new gameplan. They could still do rematches, but wait a minute instead of doing it the next month on PPV.

They would run into a problem there where the new champ might lose the title to someone else in the meantime, but they could write around that by saying the former champ is entitled to match against whomever the champion is within 90 days.

["Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay]

Oct 13, 2015 15:46:32 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

I don't mind title rematches. I just hate that they're dragged out to the next PPV for no reason other than to fill time. Sometimes I think a rematch should be done on TV and then they should move on to the next feud already.

Also in the case of Owens/Balor and Sasha/Bayley (as groundbreaking as the women's main event was), it kind of bugged me that the TakeOver events were being headlined by people who should've already been done with NXT.

This post is my exact thoughts.

Second Owens was on the main roster I wanted him out of NXT. He was done and nobody believed he would win the belt back, especially with such irregular specials.

[Chiral]

Nice thread. But this first match was just a fluke come this Sunday I'll be taking my win back.



But seriously though, the way WWE does title rematches (even in NXT as mentioned above) leaves a lot to be desired.

[cabbageboy]

The problem with the whole rematch clause is that there is no real upside either way it goes. If Wrestler A succeeds in getting the belt back from Wrestler B, then we have a continuous feud with no end, just constant rematches. If Wrestler B succeeds in fending off Wrestler A in the rematch, then Wrestler A has done a pointless job. Rematches can make sense if a feud is a massive money drawer (Austin/Rock in 1999...Austin wins at WM, rematch at Backlash). Conversely, let's say in 1990 Hogan got a rematch a month after WM against Warrior. Wouldn't that have taken some luster off that once in a generation match at WM?

[Some Guy]

Orton/Cena traded the title back and forth in their 2009 rematches. Bring back Orton/Cena?

[bootytea]

The whole rematch clause is really stupid to me.

If you lost the title it means the person that beat you is the better man. You should have to earn your next shot like everybody else.

I get WWE has a lot of pay per views, but why not just give a shot to someone else and have them lose? Save the bigger matches for someone else.

I'm all for someone getting a rematch if they were screwed out of the title, but the damn rematch clause rubbish needs to end, especially when someone counters the rematch clause with a rematch clause of their own.

[Futureraven: Beelzebruv]

Oct 13, 2015 15:46:32 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

I don't mind title rematches. I just hate that they're dragged out to the next PPV for no reason other than to fill time. Sometimes I think a rematch should be done on TV and then they should move on to the next feud already.

Also in the case of Owens/Balor and Sasha/Bayley (as groundbreaking as the women's main event was), it kind of bugged me that the TakeOver events were being headlined by people who should've already been done with NXT.

It's developmental, preparing them for Wrestlemania when the main event spots are taken by people who don't work there

[Hit Girl]

Why get hyped for a title match if you know there will be another one soon afterwards?

It undermines the winner and loser.

[wakko]

Batista disagrees with this entire thread. You all have now angered him.

[Deleted]

I think the rematch clause is something that really, really needs to die. It's one of the biggest reasons why the shows are as horribly repetitive as they are because it basically instantly drags out any title feud that actually matters at least a month past its expiration date.