repomark
Unicron
For Mash Get Smash
Posts: 3,049
|
Post by repomark on Oct 16, 2015 12:23:48 GMT -5
I think getting rid of non title matches would be a good way forward, i.e. every time Seth wrestles a singles match the title is at stake. I am not necessarily all that fussed about where or when the title changes hands so long as it is well built but I do find the champion being pinned so often counter productive.
That said, I still like Seth as champion I would just like him to be booked more like Flair in the 80s.
|
|
Chiral
Salacious Crumb
Posts: 73,598
|
Post by Chiral on Oct 16, 2015 13:49:58 GMT -5
They probably count all the vacancy declarations as title changes.
|
|
dreidemy
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,397
Member is Online
|
Post by dreidemy on Oct 16, 2015 14:26:33 GMT -5
I want another battle royal like the one that Sheamus won to become n1 contender
Or a tournment with guys that never held the world title
That would be fresh
|
|
|
Post by CM Parish on Oct 16, 2015 14:42:20 GMT -5
The only issue is losing at a house show would instantly make people like us and Alvarez think Rollins had done something terrible and failed a drug test or something. Alvarez would make some bs up, make money out of it and in the end it was just WWE shaking things up.
|
|
|
Post by rydndirty on Oct 16, 2015 16:10:58 GMT -5
People STILL remember Mick Foley winning his 1st title on RAW ("That'll put butts in the seats") because it was built correctly and was a genuine shock.
It's hard to re-create that moment because the roster is just so different. But, seeing as they go back to that moment so many times, you would think that they would want to use that type of formula.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Oct 17, 2015 2:14:43 GMT -5
When was the last time any title changed hands on Raw? I'm on my phone and haven't really got time to look.
|
|
|
Post by StormanReigns on Oct 17, 2015 2:16:39 GMT -5
The fact that you can see the path multiple PPV's in advance is a huge part of the problem in the WWE. Remember when "anything can happen in the WWE" Now nothing happens
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Oct 17, 2015 2:24:40 GMT -5
When was the last time any title changed hands on Raw? I'm on my phone and haven't really got time to look. Barrett beating Ziggler for the IC belt in a 2/3 Falls match at the start of the year.
|
|
|
Post by Hobby Drifter on Oct 17, 2015 2:31:39 GMT -5
I'm against title matches on RAW (minus MitB cash-ins). Why would a "sport" built around selling PPVs and Network subscriptions give away such matches on free TV? The free TV exists so that viewers can get to know the competitors and see them showcase their skills. Title matches require you spend a bit of money.
|
|
schma
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,740
|
Post by schma on Oct 17, 2015 2:39:42 GMT -5
I think getting rid of non title matches would be a good way forward, i.e. every time Seth wrestles a singles match the title is at stake. I am not necessarily all that fussed about where or when the title changes hands so long as it is well built but I do find the champion being pinned so often counter productive. That said, I still like Seth as champion I would just like him to be booked more like Flair in the 80s. I've been wanting that for years. I've always hated people having to beat a champion just to get a shot at their belt. If the champ can't beat you in the lead up, they shouldn't have the belt. The worst example prior to Rollins of the champ being pinned all the time was Rey Mysterio Jr. I absolutely hated his reign because people were beating him week in and week out and getting nothing for it. Plus when JBL couldn't beat him after he spent a month or two being pinned by hosses, it made JBL look terrible too. Much like someone else mentioned how right now losing against Rollins looks bad. They really need to make it that you defend the belt in every singles match (or tag match in the case of the tag titles). Also, they really do need to have a title change on free tv at some point. Part of what I loved about the Attitude Era and even WCW in that same era was that there was a feeling that anything could happen. Now it's just, oh look someone had a 3 month reign, that means they had two title defences. They only won 50% of their title matches.
|
|
Sam Punk
Hank Scorpio
Own Nothing, Be Happy
Posts: 6,304
|
Post by Sam Punk on Oct 17, 2015 16:37:00 GMT -5
I'm against title matches on RAW (minus MitB cash-ins). Why would a "sport" built around selling PPVs and Network subscriptions give away such matches on free TV? The free TV exists so that viewers can get to know the competitors and see them showcase their skills. Title matches require you spend a bit of money. I don't necessarily disagree but you need to give people a reason to tune in every week. Title changes don't need to happen every week but if you never have any then your ratings will plummet. (Like what's currently happening.) And USA network isn't going to be happy paying nine figures annually for a low rated program.
|
|
RedDevil
Don Corleone
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 1,692
|
Post by RedDevil on Oct 17, 2015 19:18:44 GMT -5
People STILL remember Mick Foley winning his 1st title on RAW ("That'll put butts in the seats") because it was built correctly and was a genuine shock. It's hard to re-create that moment because the roster is just so different. But, seeing as they go back to that moment so many times, you would think that they would want to use that type of formula. That's an interesting template to follow actually - but who would be the equivalent to Foley on the roster today though? An actually sympathetic face to win the title for the first time? I'm not sure who would work anywhere near the same way as Foley did. It would probably be best if they went another way by giving the belt to a harder-edged face like Ambrose and allow the anti-Cena type of fans in the audience (in somewhere like New York, Philly or Chicago) to create a moment to mark the occasion. That could shake things up substantially.
|
|
schma
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,740
|
Post by schma on Oct 17, 2015 19:43:40 GMT -5
People STILL remember Mick Foley winning his 1st title on RAW ("That'll put butts in the seats") because it was built correctly and was a genuine shock. It's hard to re-create that moment because the roster is just so different. But, seeing as they go back to that moment so many times, you would think that they would want to use that type of formula. That's an interesting template to follow actually - but who would be the equivalent to Foley on the roster today though? An actually sympathetic face to win the title for the first time? I'm not sure who would work anywhere near the same way as Foley did. It would probably be best if they went another way by giving the belt to a harder-edged face like Ambrose and allow the anti-Cena type of fans in the audience (in somewhere like New York, Philly or Chicago) to create a moment to mark the occasion. That could shake things up substantially. It wasn't even as much that he was a sympathetic face as the fact that he really didn't fit the look of a typical WWE champion. By that point he was carrying a fair amount of extra weight so it was the surprise factor more than anything. The idea that this guy was winning the big one, let alone on a raw was super exciting. As you said a harder edged babyface would be easier to find but I think the big thing here would be the title change on a free show. That would give them a shot in the arm, though they'd need to find a way to follow through and not just go back to status quo.
|
|