Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2013 23:52:06 GMT -5
I don't think there's anything I hate more about WWE than the rematch clause thing. It seems like just such a lazy, pointless clutch, especially so now that there's only one title but a stacked roster and with the annual, "No one cares about the title match," PPV up next. It's just a good excuse for them to be lazy and repetitive.
So, here's an all-purpose thread for hating on it. The rematch clause is a big part of why WWE's as boring and predictable as it often is. The rematch clause makes children cry. The rematch clause killed my dog. The rematch clause is history's greatest monster.
|
|
repomark
Unicron
For Mash Get Smash
Posts: 3,049
|
Post by repomark on Dec 31, 2013 0:00:18 GMT -5
I agree it is too restrictive and pretty much guarantees the main event of the following ppv being between the same two guys whenever there is a title change. Generally that is what happens anyway, but removing the guaranteed rematch it might make it slightly less predictable.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Tank on Dec 31, 2013 0:00:52 GMT -5
BUT LEEZUKAH, RANDY ORTON'S GONNA DEFEND THE TITLE AGAINST JOHN CENA!!!
JOHN CENA!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, it's pointless, lazy, and rarely leads to a match that was worthwhile of the feud continuing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 0:01:03 GMT -5
I wish it would go away also.
It's fine for people to have rematches but they shouldn't be guaranteed every time.
|
|
|
|
Post by "Evil Brood" Jackson Vanik on Dec 31, 2013 0:04:13 GMT -5
It should be used in certain instances. What is tough is having an authority figure to have a clear standard for when a rematch ought to happen. With The Authority in charge currently, I doubt that would happen. But in a perfect world, it would be used when the former champion was either screwed (think Bryan at Summerslam) or they put up a tremendous effort (Ziggler at Payback). When Curtis Axel drops the belt to Big E, I think that story has been told and having a rematch would just be repetitive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 31, 2013 0:07:57 GMT -5
I dunno, it does make things seem more 'legit' to have it that way, as actual sports like boxing and mma tend to have rematches and such. I can agree it can be a storytelling crutch though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Been burned too many times on Dec 31, 2013 0:09:44 GMT -5
Agreed.
I like the idea of earning your title shot again rather than getting an automatic rematch just because you were the last champion.
|
|
wisdomwizard
King Koopa
Too Salty
Watching you.
Posts: 11,087 
|
Post by wisdomwizard on Dec 31, 2013 0:11:04 GMT -5
I don't think it needs to go away completely, I do think there should be limits such as if Cena wins the belt then Orton takes it off Cena and then Cena gets again because = rematch clause.
|
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Dec 31, 2013 0:14:08 GMT -5
The rematch clause is a big part of why WWE's as boring and predictable as it often is. It really is. I know they have to fill a dozen PPVs every year, but it's still such a lazy excuse to keep putting on the same matches over and over. |
|
Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Dec 31, 2013 0:14:31 GMT -5
I feel rematches should only happen if the previous title match ended in shenanigans. Their match at TLC ended with Orton defeating Cena without any aid or tomfoolery. There should be a new number one contender. Or at the very least, have Cena have to earn that shot back. He was just given it. And the kicker is, he didn't even ask for it from what I can tell.
|
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Dec 31, 2013 1:53:30 GMT -5
I have no problem with the rematch clause. I figured that no matter who unified the belts, the loser was going to get a rematch whether it was Cena, Orton or any other hypothetical wrestler. To me the problem with current WWE is that title feuds get stretched out for months on end because repeated shenanigans "necessitate" a rematch.
The rematch clause is okay. Just either get it out of the way on free TV or it's one and done and then move on to the next opponent. No more 3-6 month long title feuds.
|
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Dec 31, 2013 1:56:24 GMT -5
I feel rematches should only happen if the previous title match ended in shenanigans. Their match at TLC ended with Orton defeating Cena without any aid or tomfoolery. There should be a new number one contender. Or at the very least, have Cena have to earn that shot back. He was just given it. And the kicker is, he didn't even ask for it from what I can tell. Hell, Brock simply said "hey, I'm the number one contender after the Rumble... deal with it." |
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Dec 31, 2013 2:07:42 GMT -5
Yeah Orton shouldn't defend his title against Cena.
He should defend it against Bryan at the Rumble. Then Bryan should win the Rumble and choose to face Orton early at the Chamber. But after Bryan loses at the Chamber, he gets another match at WrestleMania against Orton for the title.
This repeats until either guy quits, gets fired, or dies.
|
|
Chip
Hank Scorpio
Slam Jam Death.
Posts: 5,185
|
Post by Chip on Dec 31, 2013 2:14:51 GMT -5
I hate it. It's lazy and adds finality to a match-up when it's not necessary. Seeing one guy lose twice in a row just hammers into your brain that they just aren't good enough to beat their opponent, at least with only one shot at the match you can persuade yourself into thinking it was a fluke win or an unlucky loss or something.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 2:15:02 GMT -5
Yeah Orton shouldn't defend his title against Cena. He should defend it against Bryan at the Rumble. Then Bryan should win the Rumble and choose to face Orton early at the Chamber. But after Bryan loses at the Chamber, he gets another match at WrestleMania against Orton for the title. This repeats until either guy quits, gets fired, or dies. There are other guys on the roster who could make for decent title contenders. Just main event-wise, you could do Punk or Mysterio, and given it's the Rumble you could easily give someone like Cody or Ziggler a shot. Besides, this is less about, "Cena vs. Orton again!" and more just years worth of us only ever seeing a title match only on one PPV if someone's injured or it's just an obvious filler match (like Cena / Henry, or Cena / Truth) with the rematch clause being a big reason why that is. Honestly I meant to make this thread a few days ago and the Cena / Orton thing just motivated me to finally get around to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hurricane on Dec 31, 2013 2:56:28 GMT -5
I dunno, it does make things seem more 'legit' to have it that way, as actual sports like boxing and mma tend to have rematches and such. I can agree it can be a storytelling crutch though. My thoughts exactly. However, that's why I have no problem with a singular rematch. Match, rematch, then move on, I say. |
|
schma
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,679
|
Post by schma on Dec 31, 2013 3:05:13 GMT -5
The rematch clause makes sense. You lose the belt that means you were demoted from top dog to second dog. You're first in line. That rematch doesn't have to be at a PPV. The thing is when as people have mentioned that you get multiple rematches, either due to shenanigans or Christian begging for one more match or whatever and you get multiple months of the same two people in a title match at a PPV.
I am one of the first people to be bothered by the stale title shot pool. For years and years and years there's typically about 4-6 guys who will have a chance at a title shot at any given time. If there are any 4 way number one contender matches, it's those guys. That's why a lot of people are scratching their heads for a fresh matchup out of the current main eventers. That said, it's not the rematch clause's fault. It's the booking that results in messy match endings or abeyance or other silliness that necessitates multiple matches. That said, get two people who can put on a great match and give them a 2/3 falls match and leave it at that in lieu of a rematch. Not always but once in a while, just so as people have said you can move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Non Banjoble Tokens on Dec 31, 2013 3:11:59 GMT -5
Well, it is that time of the year again, here comes Rematch Claus!!
Ho ho ho!! Rematch for you, John Cena!! You did save that burning busload of orphans from that tornado plus you taught Nikki Bella to poop in the toilet too. You get double rematches!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 3:28:43 GMT -5
Well, it is that time of the year again, here comes Rematch Claus!!
Ho ho ho!! Rematch for you, John Cena!! You did save that burning busload of orphans from that tornado plus you taught Nikki Bella to poop in the toilet too. You get double rematches!!
Santa Clause and John Cena must have the strangest conversations: Santa Clause: (Giving Cena a new pair of Jorts) Now remember John, I see you when you're sleep and I know when you're awak- John Cena (Waving his hand in front of his face): YOU CAN'T SEE ME!!! |
|
Emmet Russell
King Koopa
Quieter
The best wrestler on earth.
Posts: 12,526
|
Post by Emmet Russell on Dec 31, 2013 3:40:05 GMT -5
I used to find it really cool, & a good way to keep a storyline going. Now though it's completely jumped the shark.
They could get out of it easy too! all they need to do is have Triple H & Stephanie tell people that here on out, there's no more rematch clause. If you lose, you lose, & you're back at the bottom of the heap fighting your way back up to the top. Would be a great way for some fresh matches & less repeating of the same matches over & over.
|
|
