The King of the Ring is Meh

[Deleted]

Nov 30, 2013 1:56:57 GMT -5 BitterAF said:

I agree with the OP. With the Royal Rumble and 2 MITB matches a year, with guaranteed title matches with each, the KOTR is meaningless when compared. Even if the winner is guaranteed a title match, that would allow for 4 opportunities for title matches. There are quite a few here saying that 2 MITB matches are too much. If we do go to having 1 world title, the Royal Rumble and 1 MITB is enough. Also, with Lawler present, we don't need a second king gimmick.

If they go back to one briefcase, then why not have KOTR be for MITB? Who said the MITB match has to be a ladder match? Why not a tournament?

[mysterydriver]

If they would bring back a King of the Ring format, they'd either have to swing in the "Nothing but super-built stars" route with Orton, Cena, Show, and other main eventers or swing down the "Never Held a World Title" route to get a tournament with younger guys like Cody, Rollins, Fandango, and the like.

Because if you mix the two, it's just filler and boring. The Round of 16 or 8 is nothing but obvious when John Cena is facing Fandango (no matter how "great" Fandango does in a competitive loss) or Orton facing Darren Young.

I kind of wish they'd lean towards a Contender's Tournament with the "Never Been World Champion" catch. I remember really enjoying the battle royal on the Jesse Ventura hosted Raw that led to Sheamus's first title win.

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

Nov 30, 2013 19:37:21 GMT -5 mysterydriver said:

If they would bring back a King of the Ring format, they'd either have to swing in the "Nothing but super-built stars" route with Orton, Cena, Show, and other main eventers or swing down the "Never Held a World Title" route to get a tournament with younger guys like Cody, Rollins, Fandango, and the like.

Because if you mix the two, it's just filler and boring. The Round of 16 or 8 is nothing but obvious when John Cena is facing Fandango (no matter how "great" Fandango does in a competitive loss) or Orton facing Darren Young.

I kind of wish they'd lean towards a Contender's Tournament with the "Never Been World Champion" catch. I remember really enjoying the battle royal on the Jesse Ventura hosted Raw that led to Sheamus's first title win.

Not necessarily. I think in a King of the Ring scenario, Cena is more likely to lose to Fandango after interference from the guy he's feuding with than actually win the match. They aren't going to waste the accolade of King of the Ring on "super built stars" no matter how many of them are in the tournament.

[Oh Cry Me a Screwball]

I'm surprised with WWE's obsession with gimmick PPVs that they haven't brought it back yet.

I'm not the biggest fan of the KotR gimmick, but it sure would beat having another worthless PPV like Payback or Battleground with no draw to it.

[Madagascar Fred]

ummmmmmmm it was pretty important for Brock, Angle, Bret, HHH, Austin and Owen!

[AJ Smudgico]

This is where TNA could learn from 90s WWF/E.
Whereas nowadays the KOTR gimmick seems a bit dead or stale in today's WWE, TNA could use it as a one night proper tournament (they like those) and have it as the Bound For Glory series. It would eradicate the long drawn out Bound for Glory series which is confusing and too time consuming, and give them a white hot ppv going into BFG.

When KOTR debuted in WWF in the early 90s, up to Triple H (ignoring Mabel) it was a decent ppv, building new contenders and storylines. TNA should lap that up

I appreciate this is slightly off topic, but it's just n idea to throw out there!

[Sam Punk]

Nov 30, 2013 19:37:21 GMT -5 mysterydriver said:

I kind of wish they'd lean towards a Contender's Tournament with the "Never Been World Champion" catch. I remember really enjoying the battle royal on the Jesse Ventura hosted Raw that led to Sheamus's first title win.

This is an interesting idea but do they have enough guys that haven't won the title to fill out a bracket? We'd have a 3 man tournament with Fandango/Ryder/Khali.

[Sephiroth]

I'm one of those "less is more" types when it comes to titles, and to make up for fewer titles there would need to be prominent non-titles that still elevate the one who holds it even if it is not an actual belt. King of the Ring fits that profile, along with MITB and the Slammee's.

[Deleted]

Thes should start with a full 64 man bracket and have first rounds on NXT, ME, SmackDown & Superstars. That would be super cool.

[Kevin Hamilton]

Nov 30, 2013 17:52:15 GMT -5 @bootytime said:

I like tournaments since they don't have them much.

I was gonna say something similar; I think a lot of us just like tournaments themselves. Maybe we're just bracket fans.

[BorneAgain]

I always thought you could do something interesting in the weeks leading up to the Rumble with a 30 man tournament (with two people getting byes) where the farther you get in the tournament, the later your number, with the winner obviously getting number 30.

[Hit Girl]

30....64 man tournaments?

WWE doesn't have the depth for that.

8 is enough.

[Deleted]

Dec 1, 2013 13:55:07 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

30....64 man tournaments?

WWE doesn't have the depth for that.

8 is enough.

Nonsense.

There are over 100 guys on NXT & Main roster combined. That's what would fill the first round. Just like in NCAA tourney, not every school, or in this case wrestler is going to be competitive but if there's one Cinderella run the whole point of 'anything can happen' is accomplished and captivates the audience.

They can easily do the 64 man or 32 man bracket. And have the "real" tournament with 8 or 16 left.

Superstars, Main Event, NXT or even SmackDown would be better used to host 1st rd matchups than they are used now with one meaningful match and rehash of Raw matches from the same week.

[Hit Girl]

Dec 1, 2013 14:04:43 GMT -5 @rackzyder said:

Dec 1, 2013 13:55:07 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

30....64 man tournaments?

WWE doesn't have the depth for that.

8 is enough.

Nonsense.

There are over 100 guys on NXT & Main roster combined. That's what would fill the first round. Just like in NCAA tourney, not every school, or in this case wrestler is going to be competitive but if there's one Cinderella run the whole point of 'anything can happen' is accomplished and captivates the audience.

They can easily do the 64 man or 32 man bracket. And have the "real" tournament with 8 or 16 left.

Superstars, Main Event, NXT or even SmackDown would be better used to host 1st rd matchups than they are used now with one meaningful match and rehash of Raw matches from the same week.

I didn't say they didn't have the numbers. I said depth. There's a difference. What's the point in sticking 64 guys into a tournament when most of them are either jobbers or developmental guys? They may as well just base the tournament on a core group in a tournament the fans can follow carefully, rather than some overblown mess mostly consisting of guys they have no reason to care about. You can have an underdog run in an 8 man tournament over the course of one night.

[Deleted]

Dec 1, 2013 14:21:20 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

Dec 1, 2013 14:04:43 GMT -5 @rackzyder said:

Nonsense.

There are over 100 guys on NXT & Main roster combined. That's what would fill the first round. Just like in NCAA tourney, not every school, or in this case wrestler is going to be competitive but if there's one Cinderella run the whole point of 'anything can happen' is accomplished and captivates the audience.

They can easily do the 64 man or 32 man bracket. And have the "real" tournament with 8 or 16 left.

Superstars, Main Event, NXT or even SmackDown would be better used to host 1st rd matchups than they are used now with one meaningful match and rehash of Raw matches from the same week.

I didn't say they didn't have the numbers. I said depth. There's a difference. What's the point in sticking 64 guys into a tournament when most of them are either jobbers or developmental guys? They may as well just base the tournament on a core group in a tournament the fans can follow carefully, rather than some overblown mess mostly consisting of guys they have no reason to care about. You can have an underdog run in an 8 man tournament over the course of one night.

Where's the fun of seeing the "same" 8 guys and crown a king? Mandatory ADR, Big Show, Ryback, Mark Henry and 4 more guys not in any title picture? No thank you. I'll live without such an tournament.

Chyna beating Crash Holly or having someone beat Bull Buchanan or Devon Dudley was always a fun part of the experience in the past and they were jobbers. Every match was 10x more interesting than if you had the same Steven Richards vs Chavo Guerrero match without any build up.

Kofi Kingston vs Curtis Axel and Dolph Ziggler vs Big E for 45th time in last 12 months for no reason or the same match in Last 32 of KOTR? One leads to nothing, other is a part of something. Either way a match on TV happens, only with a reason behind it.

You always can have a Ryback beating someone in 25 seconds for first round or two to show that he means business, while Damien Sandow might struggle against a random NXT guy. Someone might do whatever it takes to win and hint a heel turn for future matchups, or a legend returns for one final run, etc...

The possibilities are endless in a KOTR that has qualifying rounds. 8 man tournaments is just limiting the variety and it's a lot more impressive to win 5 or 6 matches than lets say 3 to be crowned the King. And more people you include regardless of the outcome, it's a more impressive to win a tournament with 32 wrestlers than it is with 8.

[molson5]

I think things could be mixed up a little by having an annual tournament championship that was a championships unto itself, not a means to something else. It would take some re-educating of the fans to convince them that an annual, non-defending type championship has value, but I think it could work. Sometimes I think there's an over-emphasis on fighting for title shots - it's great to have the world championship be the most important thing that everybody wants, but I kind of miss the days where just winning battle royals and tournaments and big matches could be it's own reward. I think some of the Japan promotions kind of work like this, and this is the setup in a lot of real, individual sports as well like golf and tennis. It wouldn't be quite the same if winning Wimbledon just meant that you got to play the champion tennis player some other time, in some other city. Maybe it can be a big deal that you win the annual one-night King of the ring tournament, or the annual Philadelphia weapons battle royal, or annual 3-week long 64-man tournament that takes place in house shows across the country, and it's not solely a stepping stone to some other match. It would definitely make the booking a lot less predictable than the royal rumble has become, where every year there's only 2 or 3 guys who could possibly win.

[Friday Night SmackOwn]

Dec 1, 2013 11:51:33 GMT -5 Madagascar Fred said:

ummmmmmmm it was pretty important for Brock, Angle, Bret, HHH, Austin and Owen!

Especially for Owen, who declared himself "The King of Harts" due to his win, and set him up for bigger things.

[Hit Girl]

Dec 1, 2013 14:35:35 GMT -5 @rackzyder said:

Dec 1, 2013 14:21:20 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

I didn't say they didn't have the numbers. I said depth. There's a difference. What's the point in sticking 64 guys into a tournament when most of them are either jobbers or developmental guys? They may as well just base the tournament on a core group in a tournament the fans can follow carefully, rather than some overblown mess mostly consisting of guys they have no reason to care about. You can have an underdog run in an 8 man tournament over the course of one night.

Where's the fun of seeing the "same" 8 guys and crown a king? Mandatory ADR, Big Show, Ryback, Mark Henry and 4 more guys not in any title picture? No thank you. I'll live without such an tournament.

It doesn't have to be those guys. They could have an 8 man star making tournament of guys like Gabriel, Neville, Zayn etc....

Fewer guys with a qualifying win each, being introduced (or reintroduced) to an audience and put over strongly by commentators in fairly long matches allowing them to show what they can do

A smaller tournment allows the audience to know them better than an enormous tournament largely consisting of quick throwaway matches.

[onetruemisfit]

Because it's tradition damnit! That is all.

[Deleted]

Dec 1, 2013 15:13:56 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

Dec 1, 2013 14:35:35 GMT -5 @rackzyder said:

Where's the fun of seeing the "same" 8 guys and crown a king? Mandatory ADR, Big Show, Ryback, Mark Henry and 4 more guys not in any title picture? No thank you. I'll live without such an tournament.

It doesn't have to be those guys. They could have an 8 man star making tournament of guys like Gabriel, Neville, Zayn etc....

Fewer guys with a qualifying win each, being introduced (or reintroduced) to an audience and put over strongly by commentators in fairly long matches allowing them to show what they can do

A smaller tournment allows the audience to know them better than an enormous tournament largely consisting of quick throwaway matches.

I disagree. The feat of winning an 8 man tournament is the real throwaway. "Congrats Wrestler XY, you just overcame the odds and beat other seven randomly chosen wrestlers. You're the greatest King of all times, not those guys who won tourneys that included a big part of the roster."