Only defend WWE title at WM/SS

[Boo!]

An idea I had where WWE could take a lead from boxing. Not that boxing has a WM or SS but what I mean is the infrequent defences of the world title(s). For the most part the strap doesn't matter in an angle, it's all about 'dude, I hate you' and 'me too'. If the story is right people will pay to see it. Back in the day the title was rarely defended at non-WM pay-per-views. The holder was usually in the Rumble match itself, a tag match at Summerslam and in the mix of an 8-man tag a Survivor Series.

Of course the industry and audience has changed but I think the WWE belt now means so little that you could do this without consequence. Nobody will think "The title isn't on the line? Sheeesh, I'm not buying this!"

So why not change it so it's only defended twice a year. Summerslam and WM. It'll also make those events an even bigger deal than they are, especially Summerslam. Have the 'WWE board' sanction two title defences a year so when it happens people know two things.

1) It'll be a big deal
2) They'll have to give serious consideration to whom they give it to, as they could have it for a while. So they'll be working towards something that's creatively been thought through rather than giving the strap to someone on whim of morning of a PPV and then changing their minds and reversing it three weeks later.

They could also use up to drive up house show gates by defending it on the road off television, as they used to. Even if everyone knows (and knew then) the damn thing was never changing hands, to provide something that you don't see on TV e.g a title defence, is an extra selling point.

Finaly, I think it'll encourage more creative, inventive and interesting PPV main events and angles. Besides if you only do this for the WWE title, you can defend the World title 4 times a night if you wanted to satisfy the contingent who demands title defences before interest.

[repomark]

I can see where you are coming from in terms of adding prestige to the title, but I suppose the issue is that we are already conditioned into pretty much knowing that the WWE title is only going to change hands at a PPV. Very rarely this happens on Raw, but knowing there is a possibility at least keeps you watching.

With no WWE title matches on Raw or on every PPV except WM and Summerslam, you are then left with a void to fill/sell the other PPVs which I think would be difficult.

I would actually go the other way. I think any time a wrestler who holds a title is in a match,the title should be on the line. i.e. non title matches should no longer exist.

This means you don't get guys like Curtis Axel getting pinned clean every other week yet still holding onto the title. They would have to use means like getting counted out or cheap methods to hold onto the belt if they can't win, which gains more heat and makes you yearn more to see them finally get pinned. No one wants to see something they have already seen several times already.

It also makes a fighting champion look a lot stronger.

[Boo!]

You could do other things though to fill the void. The World Title for example. Surely one world title defence is enough? Plus there's the IC belt

[VersionOne]

Certainly reducing the number title defences would help but two per year is a little too low, perhaps 4 per year is a little more like it. 'Mania, SummerSlam, Night of Champions and one spare to throw in whenever so everything isn't too formulaic. I do disagree with your opinion that they could make this change on an instant without consequence because I (and more importantly, I think, the average viewer) still see value in the WWE title. You could even argue that the WWE title in the only championship with any real value at the moment and a WWE Tile match on every PPV is something people have become very accustom to over the years.

Because of this WWE would have to put some work in before a major change like that, i.e they'd have to build up the secondary title to make them worthy of carrying a PPV, now having the WHC on Cena certainly helps in this area because they have to do the same for the rest of the championships so they can serve as worthy semi main events and attractions to support shows without a WWE Championship defence.

[TGM]

I like the idea but I think it's too difficult to do with the amount of tv time they have to fill up.

[Professor Chaos]

Might bump buys for Mania/SS but would tank every other PPV, possibly TV too knowing you're stuck with a champ for six months at a time.

[Pushed to the Moon]

Nov 15, 2013 8:33:41 GMT -5 repomark said:

I can see where you are coming from in terms of adding prestige to the title, but I suppose the issue is that we are already conditioned into pretty much knowing that the WWE title is only going to change hands at a PPV. Very rarely this happens on Raw, but knowing there is a possibility at least keeps you watching.

With no WWE title matches on Raw or on every PPV except WM and Summerslam, you are then left with a void to fill/sell the other PPVs which I think would be difficult.

I would actually go the other way. I think any time a wrestler who holds a title is in a match,the title should be on the line. i.e. non title matches should no longer exist.

This means you don't get guys like Curtis Axel getting pinned clean every other week yet still holding onto the title. They would have to use means like getting counted out or cheap methods to hold onto the belt if they can't win, which gains more heat and makes you yearn more to see them finally get pinned. No one wants to see something they have already seen several times already.

It also makes a fighting champion look a lot stronger.

I agree I'm sick of seeing champs lose non title matches literally every week.

[BigWill]

The constant title matches allow the WWE to be flexible with who they can put the title on. They need to be able to alter pushes if things don't go as they planned. Imagine if they made someone WWE champion, but the superstar ended up completely bombing. Then they'd be stuck with a main eventer that doesn't draw for 6 months. What kind of effect do you think that'd have on the company? And how do you think fans would feel about constant filler feuds with the WWE champion, knowing that they're all pointless, because the challenger likely won't benefit in any way, even if they beat the champion?

And on a personal level, the idea sounds awful. I enjoy seeing constant title matches, as it gives storylines a purpose, and makes the champions look credible when they're able to come out on top after multiple title defenses. CM Punk's 400+ day title reign wouldn't have been anywhere near impressive if every WWE champion were guaranteed at least a 6 months reign, and only have to successfully defend the title twice to beat it. If something like this were to be put in place I'd quit watching the WWE altogether.

[Kevin Hamilton]

As was said, you're setting up your main eventers to be mired in utterly meaningless feuds the majority of the time in that model.

Back in the 80's it could work fine, not so much now.

[Reflecto]

Nov 15, 2013 8:33:41 GMT -5 repomark said:

I would actually go the other way. I think any time a wrestler who holds a title is in a match,the title should be on the line. i.e. non title matches should no longer exist.

This means you don't get guys like Curtis Axel getting pinned clean every other week yet still holding onto the title. They would have to use means like getting counted out or cheap methods to hold onto the belt if they can't win, which gains more heat and makes you yearn more to see them finally get pinned. No one wants to see something they have already seen several times already.

It also makes a fighting champion look a lot stronger.

But on the other side of this- you're also taking one one necessary tool in building up new stars by saying non-title matches no longer exist. If you do that, then the only tool to make a guy have a case is "they beat the champion in a tag match"- which would make things more predictable at best- or at worse, the non-title matches no longer exist is out, and a bunch of undeserving champs on the verge would get shorter title reigns to make them be a threat.

Personally, I think the middle path would mix things and keep things going:

-Have WWE institute a worked, Ring of Honor type "Top Five Contenders" ranking. If the champion is booked against one of the top 5 contenders for the belt that week, then the title is automatically on the line [with them being knocked out of the Top 5 if they lose to the champion.] The champion, however, is knocked into the Top 5 if they lose due to their rematch clause.

This way, the most likely people to be a threat are fighting for the title, so it means something if they win or lose. You get a stat to build around- and wrestling fans- both smark and mark- always geek out for any "REAL" stats that pro wrestling gives us to work with. However, it doesn't kill the non-title match entirely- you can still have the Wheel of Aggression- if Alberto Del Rio fights Zack Ryder, it's simply "Well, the top five WHC contenders this week are Sheamus/Cody Rhodes/Dean Ambrose/The Miz/Dolph Ziggler- Ryder needs to work to get on the list for his title shot, but if he wins this week, maybe he'll be on the list next week and THEN he can get a title shot."

[Chip]

I'm not sure I could handle a year long title reign consisting of at most two title defenses.

[Magic knows Black Lives Matter]

Two defenses just doesn't work when you run as many shows as WWE. I get the idea behind it but there's need to be at least every couple of months.

WWE has also shown that they no longer know how to do a compelling feud that doesn't revolve around the World title at any other time but Mania.

[welshjobber]

What's the point in being WWE champion if you defend it twice a year.

[mizerable]

While I don't have a problem with them defending the title a little less, I wouldn't want every title reign to somehow now average out to 6 months to a year, with a whopping 3 title defenses easily beating out CM Punk's recent longest (of the TV age) title reign.

Bring back KOTR and have the title be defended at;

Royal Rumble
Wrestlemania
KOTR
Summerslam
Night of Champions (eh)
Survivor Series

That gives you a nice steady slow burn for a lot of the feuds so you don't need to have so many rematches, or worse yet drop the title 4 to 6 times a year in order to keep fresh feuds going.

Edit: Moving forward, maybe the better option is to have the PPVs in which there's a #1 contendership on the line...maybe those should be the PPVs that don't have title matches, whereas the lesser PPVs with no gimmicks would.

So Royal Rumble, MITB, KOTR can all be built towards who will be the new contender. Perhaps Survivor Series can have some measurable stipulation added to it which would float into the next PPV.