Beating the champ for a title match

[schma]

So it's official.  Best way to get a championship match is to beat the champions.  Jericho announced it on Monday.  It's been the case for years.  This seems rather ridiculous though.  People wearing the belts are supposed to be the best or at the top of their heap.  If they lose matches they shouldn't get to keep the belt.  This has been done for years, it's the lazy way of building momentum.  Person beats champ, person gets championship match, they lose.

We've had a cruiserweight champ for what 3 weeks now and he lost a match last night.  KO lost last week.  Remember when Rey was squashed for a month straight after being world champ?  I'm sure these instances are really building the prestige of their respective belts.

So what do you guys think?  Should people be beating champions to get a shot at their title?  Should a champ's title be on the line every time they step in the ring (assuming tag team in tag match and singles champ in singles match)?

[Mozenrath]

You don't need to be the best the whole match, you only need to be the best for 3 seconds, or however long it takes to secure a submission. On that front, I can understand that a champion need not win every match, but it is my least favorite method of building a contender.

[evilhomer]

If they insist on having a weak champion, I'm more in favour of the Honky Tonk Man reign. The thing that they forget when they try to recreate this is that he always won when it mattered. He pulled the DQ card, he pulled the countout card, anything to hold onto his belt when he was overwhelmed by his opponent, then when all else fails, win, cheat to win, just make sure to win. Fans were rabid to see him lose the title after getting cheated out of it so many times.

[The Yes Man]

It's so lazy, and is another factor in leading to the same matches being repeated all the damn time.

[Deleted]

Oct 5, 2016 0:20:04 GMT -5 The Yes Man said:

It's so lazy, and is another factor in leading to the same matches being repeated all the damn time.

Yeah, this and automatic rematch clauses are two of my biggest issues with how championships are booked these days. It's had to get excited by a fresh encounter because you know it's going to be the first in a series of like five matches in three months. Unless there's a part timer involved, you rarely see big one and done matches.

[Gerard Gerard]

I like it when it deviates from what you're expecting to come. Like, last year, folk just assumed Rollins was getting a shady RAW win over Ambrose during the build for Reigns/Orton/Rollins, but nope, Ambrose sneaks one and suddenly he's inserted into the title match to make it a four-way.

[Pushed to the Moon]

I absolutely hate it. One or two champions lose literally every week and it's so predictable.

[vinnysimmo]

It being TNA, the execution was horrible, but i think the Bound For Glory Series was a great idea! Made matches matter and made it sop that title matches were handed out on merit. Would love to see a WWE take on something simular.

[Lupin the Third]

I prefer the Chikara method.

Win 3 matches in a row, get 3 points.

Cash those 3 points in for a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY.

[Deleted]

I just feel that the champions are over exposed too much as it is...They should not be working near every televised show...It drives me nuts and takes away any prestige but im a belt mark so what does it even matter anymore

[Deleted]

Oct 5, 2016 15:27:17 GMT -5 @slickrickstyles said:

I just feel that the champions are over exposed too much as it is...They should not be working near every televised show...It drives me nuts and takes away any prestige but im a belt mark so what does it even matter anymore

I agree. WWE still puts every champ on every show like they are still competing with Nitro. The way I would like them to do it now is have a different belt main event each show. One week the World Champ defends the title in the main event, the next week the tag champs, next the women's, then the Cruiserweight, etc. That way you get a fresh main event every week. Then on the undercard you can do a number one contenders match for the following week with the champ on commentary or something.

For example, during the show there's a four way number one contenders match with Kevin Owens on guest commentary. In the main event, Sasha Banks defends the Women's title against Bayley.

The following week, you have a tag title number one contenders match, and then Kevin Owens defending the world title against the winner of last week's four way.

And if you want the champs to wrestle in between title defenses, put the singles champs in tag matches and the tag champs in singles matches. That way, fans can see them wrestle on the show, and they don't look like losers for losing non title matches and stuff.

[canal]

Oct 5, 2016 2:44:36 GMT -5 @noggy said:

Oct 5, 2016 0:20:04 GMT -5 The Yes Man said:

It's so lazy, and is another factor in leading to the same matches being repeated all the damn time.

Yeah, this and automatic rematch clauses are two of my biggest issues with how championships are booked these days. It's had to get excited by a fresh encounter because you know it's going to be the first in a series of like five matches in three months. Unless there's a part timer involved, you rarely see big one and done matches.

Oh man, the rematch clause is the worst. You can't ever just beat someone and be done with them, they always get to come out and "i want mah rematch" and then there's some long-ass gimmick match where the outcome is never in doubt. Like the Reigns/Rusev rematch, does ANYONE think Rusev has a prayer of winning that?

[schma]

Oct 5, 2016 15:27:17 GMT -5 @slickrickstyles said:

I just feel that the champions are over exposed too much as it is...They should not be working near every televised show...It drives me nuts and takes away any prestige but im a belt mark so what does it even matter anymore

I can understand that, though I tend to be on the other side of the spectrum.  I love fighting champions.  The champion who comes out and declares every match they do to be for the belt, I dig that.  For me it really adds to the prestige.  When someone has more title defences in 2 months than others have in a year of holding the same belt it feels weird.

That said, I can understand where people are coming from when they don't want the champ opening a show, closing it and maybe showing up in the middle.

[111111]

gotta fill 7 hours a week of television somehow.

[YAKMAN is ICHIBAN]

The regular part of WWE programming I hate more than this is the blank confused stare interviewers give at the end of interviews.


SAY "BACK YOU YOU, MICHAEL" OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT!

[sunnytaker]

yeah i'd rather see more #1 contender matches or even "you four guys all won your PPV matches sunday so you two are fighting this week, you two next wek, the winners fight the week after that to be the #1 contender for title X" so the guy with the title shot can actually have some momentum (no throwing them all in a fatal fourway doesn't count since it's too easy to sneak in and steal the win at the end- I think alexa was the most recent one of these) going into the match.

still at least beating the champ to get a title match is one step ahead of the "champ is in ring talking- I attack him. I am now the #1 contender" method they used for a while.

makes you wonder why people want to be the champ because it means they will now lose 75% of all their matches until the next PPV.

for all people complained about his run though, at least Magnus justified all his non-title losses. "hey the title's not on the line. why should I risk serious injury and maybe lose the belt when I defend it in two weeks by fighting to my limit in a non title match?"

[4real]

"_________has pinned the Champion!" might be one of my least favourite lines that commentators say. It happens so much it's lost all meaning.

[abjordans]

By far my least favorite thing about wrestling post Attitude Era. This is was pretty unheard of before the 1st Brand Split I feel like.

[Deleted]

I don't mind it occasionally but WWE does overdo it by a lot. Really should if you're going to go that route have it happen a lot more often in tag matches, since both it's more easy to spin it as the champion not necessarily being a loser and it keeps the eventual actual showdown fresh.

Also, if the champion's having a singles match it should be for the title. Be a good way to make every match mean something and pad the resume a bit.

[The Beast Disincarnate]

I loathe this rule to. The champ should never have 1 vs 1 non title matchs. On top of that the defeated champ has an automatic rematch at the next PPV so basically the guy loses 3 times in a row to his challenger.