|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Dec 19, 2018 23:10:19 GMT -5
I don't know how it works in boxing/MMA AND other "real" combat sports But it would make sense that the just defeated/former champion should be the number one contender Naw, when the Bronco’s lose the Super Bowl, they don’t get one more game to try and win it. They start all over. I’m not saying a guy losing his title starts at the bottom again, but he can f*** off to the house shows for his never ending rematches. But that's not the best example; the Superbowl isn't a title being defended, it's the decisive finale of an entire season of the sport. Nobody defends the Super Bowl trophy and as far as the losers starting all over, the winners start over to and at leas to my knowledge there's no real benefit or advantage to the victory moving into next season. Everyone starts at zero again and goes through the season. There's no line, there's no contendership rankings, it's just the end. The Super Bowl isn't really comparable to comba sports at all. |
|
repomark
Unicron
For Mash Get Smash
Posts: 3,049
|
Post by repomark on Dec 19, 2018 23:15:02 GMT -5
Realiscally: how often would the former champ be the obvious next opponent anyway? They should actively prevent that being the case
|
|
|
|
Post by sportatorium on Dec 19, 2018 23:37:37 GMT -5
They killed the 30 day rule, now this. They really don’t get how they are devaluing the important parts of their product.
|
|
|
|
Post by britishbulldog on Dec 19, 2018 23:51:41 GMT -5
Good. Hogan didn't get an automatic rematch, neither did Sarah's or demolition. It works better and keeps things fresh. I think it opens up a chance to find something new
|
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Dec 20, 2018 0:55:46 GMT -5
Naw, when the Bronco’s lose the Super Bowl, they don’t get one more game to try and win it. They start all over. I’m not saying a guy losing his title starts at the bottom again, but he can f*** off to the house shows for his never ending rematches. But that's not the best example; the Superbowl isn't a title being defended, it's the decisive finale of an entire season of the sport. Nobody defends the Super Bowl trophy and as far as the losers starting all over, the winners start over to and at leas to my knowledge there's no real benefit or advantage to the victory moving into next season. Everyone starts at zero again and goes through the season. There's no line, there's no contendership rankings, it's just the end. The Super Bowl isn't really comparable to comba sports at all. If anything the Super Bowl is like the Royal Rumble or the King of the Ring. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Chungus on Dec 20, 2018 8:16:20 GMT -5
When did this new rule start? Did they announce it? Thid is news to me
|
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Dec 20, 2018 16:06:26 GMT -5
When did this new rule start? Did they announce it? Thid is news to me Raw Monday. |
|
|
|
Post by Long A, Short A on Dec 20, 2018 16:25:10 GMT -5
The tle of this thread took me back a bit, but the OP isn't wrong. Most of these tittle match dealo/jawn feature two to four people that have been slow dragging and talking to each other since the fifth grade. I hope this new edict about title shots throw some spice(within reason) into the mix.
|
|
|
|
Post by YAKMAN is ICHIBAN on Dec 20, 2018 16:29:35 GMT -5
I'm fine with it for the most part but feel like it should almost always be at the next PPV rather than the next night on RAW.
Big fights should have lasting effects, and only a crazy person should want the rematch the next night (or a heel who does a post match beatdown or something)
|
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Dec 20, 2018 16:34:17 GMT -5
The tle of this thread took me back a bit, but the OP isn't wrong. Most of these tittle match dealo/jawn feature two to four people that have been slow dragging and talking to each other since the fifth grade. I hope this new edict about title shots throw some spice(within reason) into the mix. ...what? |
|
Sam Punk
Hank Scorpio
Own Nothing, Be Happy
Posts: 6,302
|
Post by Sam Punk on Dec 20, 2018 19:24:06 GMT -5
The tle of this thread took me back a bit, but the OP isn't wrong. Most of these tittle match dealo/jawn feature two to four people that have been slow dragging and talking to each other since the fifth grade. I hope this new edict about title shots throw some spice(within reason) into the mix. No offense intended but I'm having difficulty following you here. Could you please clarify?  |
|
|
|
Post by Long A, Short A on Dec 21, 2018 3:24:43 GMT -5
The tle of this thread took me back a bit, but the OP isn't wrong. Most of these tittle match dealo/jawn feature two to four people that have been slow dragging and talking to each other since the fifth grade. I hope this new edict about title shots throw some spice(within reason) into the mix. No offense intended but I'm having difficulty following you here. Could you please clarify? A Jawn is a thing and talking to people and clothes burning is something people do when they are in relationships. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2018 3:28:26 GMT -5
The rematch clause has needed to die for a LONG time. It's just lazy writing and it's part of whole months of shows being complete repeats of each other.
|
|
schma
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,679
|
Post by schma on Dec 21, 2018 5:18:12 GMT -5
I suspect there wouldn't be as much hate for the rematch clause if more of them were on the weekly shows. The rematch itself isn't the problem, it's the abuse of it, especially when they have a couple people trade the titles back and forth. While getting rid of the automatic rematch could be great, I'm not sure that it'll have a great deal of impact on its own.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ronny Rayguns Is All Elite on Dec 21, 2018 6:55:52 GMT -5
No offense intended but I'm having difficulty following you here. Could you please clarify? A Jawn is a thing and talking to people and clothes burning is something people do when they are in relationships. Philly STAND UP |
|
|
|
Post by blscks on Dec 21, 2018 13:24:01 GMT -5
Smackdown Spoiler: {Spoiler}Rematches are so antiquated, that next Tuesday Becky Lynch will get her rematch against Asuka at the Royal Rumble. Have been a nice week without automatic rematches. |
|
schma
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,679
|
Post by schma on Dec 21, 2018 14:10:19 GMT -5
I'm thinking that beyond the obvious Brock reason it might also be to protect Becky. She's on a roll right now but if she doesn't get another shot at her title, that allows Asuka to build up her credibility while Becky maintains her momentum. Plus it can play into the narrative of Becky not being the champion they want.
|
|
Spider2024
Patti Mayonnaise
Dedicated 6,666th post to Irontyger
I believe in Joe Hendry.
Posts: 39,165 
|
Post by Spider2024 on Dec 21, 2018 14:17:56 GMT -5
You could downright classify them as obsolete.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Dec 21, 2018 14:25:59 GMT -5
Smackdown Spoiler: {Spoiler}{Spoiler}Rematches are so antiquated, that next Tuesday Becky Lynch will get her rematch against Asuka at the Royal Rumble. Have been a nice week without automatic rematches. First, I don't know that what you've said has been announced so I put it in spoilers to be safe. Now on to the thing in your post, {Spoiler}I would think they could use Becky's win over Naomi who has been teaming with Asuka to justify it or even just have Asuka be the one who made the challenge/request of one of the McKids to prove she earned it. They've still got a month to pay around with it. |
|
|
|
Post by sunnytaker on Dec 21, 2018 14:36:20 GMT -5
Smackdown Spoiler: {Spoiler}{Spoiler}Rematches are so antiquated, that next Tuesday Becky Lynch will get her rematch against Asuka at the Royal Rumble. Have been a nice week without automatic rematches. maybe they only meant "rematches" plural. one is fine. |
|
