"Have the Champions Lose In A Non-Title Match"

[romanstylesiii]

Well it's one way to build to a PPV. Makes the champions look weak and it's lazy, but it's certainly a way

[Deleted]

I don't think it's a bad thing... provided you do it in moderation. For WWE it's just plain their go-to on how to build a title match.

["Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay]

It's a perfectly valid booking technique when it isn't done all the time, and WWE have weirdly cooled on it a bit the last few years when it used be the only way they booked anything.

[HMARK Center]

You say that like it wouldn't be better to have somebody lose because someone else's theme music started playing for no reason and they decided to stop paying attention and look up the ramp, instead.

[Pushed to the Moon]

I hate it so much just because it's so obvious the champ will lose 99% of the time.

[cabbageboy]

I have hated it since I first watched in the late 80s. I used to yawn at Flair losing to someone non title, fully knowing he would just win the rematch. In a vacuum it might work okay but as a fan I didn't think in such terms. It's not like Hogan or Savage were out there losing to, I dunno, Shawn Michaels circa 1988-89, in a non title match to set up a title shot later. It just made Flair look like a lesser champion since as a fan I would compare both shows.

[Final Countdown Jones]

Mar 19, 2019 22:50:28 GMT -5 Lizuka #BLM said:

I don't think it's a bad thing... provided you do it in moderation. For WWE it's just plain their go-to on how to build a title match.

"It's not a bad thing in moderation" describes a lot of WWE's booking nowadays. They like to overuse stuff until it has little to no value left because rather than being a change of pace or something shocking it's just the standard.

[sunnytaker]

I much rather see an actual #1 contender's match than either 1) person attacks the champ from behind- now gets a title match or 2) person pins champ in tag/singles match- now gets a title shot. granted at least 2 has more reason behind it, but if the champ keeps losing non title matches all the time why are we going to be surprised if they lsoe the title match? I prefer to keep the champ and challenger apart until their title match in general- sure have them fight in a tag match, but make sure it's their partner who gets pinned.


having said that I wouldn't mind if the champ losing pulls a Magnus TNA champ thing where he goes to the back afterwards after losing a match and tells his buddies "hey no big deal, title wasn't on the line so why risk serious injury trying to fight through the submission hold?" makes it seem like the champ is being smart and wasn't going all out leaving more of a question of whether the challenger can win if he WAS going all out. granted it would tick off his tag partners but hey, they don't have a title match against him coming up so who cares?

[Alice Syndrome]

I'd really rather they did the New Japan thing where pinning the champ in a tag match is basically an automatic title shot, but the champ is rarely in singles contests with potential competitors to avoid wasting a money match.