Hot Potato title changes need a come back

[Legion]

As the title says.

I wouldnt want every title doing it, but maybe if they took it in turns to have some fast changes every now and then.

Not every title needs a record breaking or awe inspiring run for every holder.

Granted, I wouldn't want a devalued useless thing like the 24/7 title back, but there must be a better medium than that and what we have now.

The titles are props, let them go back to propping up things and adding some excitement, rather than being stuck on people forever which sucks the fun out of matches because you know going in person B doesnt stand a chance of ending anything substantial, while equally, Person C does, so it becomes almost overly predictable.

[Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!!]

Nah I just got bored the other day and binged some of Brian Zane's Russo era WCW pap per view reviews and Im fine with never seeing belts hot potatoed again.

[BlackoutCreature]

As I've said before, I'm pretty sick of the 80's NWA-style never-ending title reigns that WWE has been doing lately. I know I always get a million people pointing out how wrong I am whenever I say this but the title scene is so stagnant right now. I wouldn't be against hot shotting a few titles for a little bit just to build up some excitement.

[Deleted]

IMO and I stand by this as I have always viewed it was...the only purpose to have a year long+ reign with any title is IF that title holder is making everyone they wrestle come out better for it that should be if not the sole then absoloutley the most important purpose of any super long reign.

This is why I am quite frankly sick of Romans Reign because in 3 1/2 going on 4 years now I would say less than a handful have come out of feuding him being better off but on the otherside of this Gunther is a long reign that does not feel exhausting because everyone he faces feels better win or lose having been in a match with him.

The benefit to hot potating a title is it makes things feel WAY more competitive.

[EoE: Well There's Your Problem]

Jul 20, 2023 7:19:37 GMT -5 @sigmax said:

The benefit to hot potating a title is it makes things feel WAY more competitive.

The thing is, we spent years on this forum saying everyone being capable of beating everyone else in a highly competitive environment was a bad thing. “50/50 BOOKING DOESN’T CREATE STARS” and all that. What changed? Because I feel like I’ve missed something here.

[thechase]

(Looks at the state of the Women's Tag Team titles)

What a time to be alive

[Final Countdown Jones]

Balance is the key; I think if there's some titles being locked down in the long term then it's important to have a title that moves around more. The long-in-the-tooth all-records-all-the-time approach to booking everything up really loses its shine when it's happening everywhere. If your singles titles are being held down so tight, you shoudl have maybe your tag titles move around between some really hot teams putting in great work, or have your midcard champs cycle through some workhorses who can go. Something. I don't know that it even needs to be hot potato booking, but if we get something moving around every few months and putting in some miles then that would just change things up. I think audiences like when things feel different in different places, and having your title scenes feel different can do that. Your records stand as more impressive when there's actual short term title reigns to contrast them. It makes them seem more dynastic when six people can get their hands onto one title while one person refuses to get off the other throne.

I really don't think there's a one size fits all way to book titles or a way you need to follow up one style with another. Wrestling bookers just often struggle with balance and over the past decade it feels like there's been a relentless push for lots of new title records and lots of really really long reigns as a vehicle to establish someone. It doesn't just stop working because you do it too many times, to a point, but I can't blame people for being f***ing tired of the presentation when it starts to feel like it's being padded out.

[Deleted]

Jul 20, 2023 7:24:29 GMT -5 EoE: Well There's Your Problem said:

Jul 20, 2023 7:19:37 GMT -5 @sigmax said:

The benefit to hot potating a title is it makes things feel WAY more competitive.

The thing is, we spent years on this forum saying everyone being capable of beating everyone else in a highly competitive environment was a bad thing. “50/50 BOOKING DOESN’T CREATE STARS” and all that. What changed? Because I feel like I’ve missed something here.

IMO that feels like something on a person to person basis.

I personally am not completely against 50/50 booking just depends does it have a purpose? like I consider Austin Vs Rock the entirety 50/50 booking and that served the very long term purpose of elevating both guys.

On the opposite hand something like Sasha and Charlotte trading the womens title back and forth 145 times did nothing but devalue not only both women at the time but the belt to because nothing was the benefiting and this unlike Austin Vs Rock was in absoloute excess.

[polarbearpete]

I’d argue the reason that both the weekly shows are better and that the company is making/presenting more talent as larger than life stars is due to the treatment of the titles. The hot potato 50/50 type booking is what devalues the product, imo.

I don’t mind it for one or two sets of the titles, though. Like right now the women’s tag titles are the hot potato type titles. And Theory hasn’t been progressing lately so I wouldn’t mind that title moving a bit.

[BlackoutCreature]

I wish people wouldn't use the Women's Tag Titles as an example of hot potato booking. Liv and Raquel only won the belts because Rhonda is leaving the company in a few weeks, and, with how Triple H loves his lengthy heel title reigns, I wouldn't be surprised if Chelsea and Sonya are still the champs this time next year.

[mj0mn0m]

Unless you're f***ing Bryan Danielson or Gunther in the ring, 3-8 months should be 'nuff for any story to be told.

[WoodStoner1]

How was Hot Potato title changes played? Did Bill Cullen toss a championship belt at the wrestlers? That would be uh funi!

[Lizuka #BLM]

It's not something that should happen all the time, but it certainly should happen sometimes. This every title reign last for bare minimum six months shit is completely miserable.

[A Platypus Rave is Correct]

I don't like hot potato booking but what we certainly don't need are multiple years long title reigns.

Especially ones where it seems like the only reason it is going so long is to pad the numbers.

[Instant Classic]

That’s why I like the TNT title. We don’t need every champion being champion a year or more.

[BRV]

Jul 20, 2023 6:51:23 GMT -5 BlackoutCreature said:

As I've said before, I'm pretty sick of the 80's NWA-style never-ending title reigns that WWE has been doing lately. I know I always get a million people pointing out how wrong I am whenever I say this but the title scene is so stagnant right now. I wouldn't be against hot shotting a few titles for a little bit just to build up some excitement.

There's definitely a benefit to a long title reign, as it establishes a dominant (more often than not, heel) champion who is perceived to be unbeatable, and every challenge to the championship feels important.

However, reigns that run TOO long can be a detriment. I've kind of reached that point with Gunther's Intercontinental Championship run over the past few months. Don't get me wrong, his matches are still stellar and usually the best of the night, but he also hasn't had a serious threat to his belt since, what, Braun Strowman in January? Since then, it's been this sort of inexorable march toward September when he will break the Honky Tonk Man's record, and then his challenges will suddenly have meaning again.

Like, who's seriously believing that Gunther is going to lose his reign to Drew McIntyre a month before he breaks the record? Or that he'd drop it to Madcap Moss or Mustafa Ali or Matt Riddle along the way?

[Deleted]

Jul 20, 2023 11:18:08 GMT -5 BRV said:

Jul 20, 2023 6:51:23 GMT -5 BlackoutCreature said:

As I've said before, I'm pretty sick of the 80's NWA-style never-ending title reigns that WWE has been doing lately. I know I always get a million people pointing out how wrong I am whenever I say this but the title scene is so stagnant right now. I wouldn't be against hot shotting a few titles for a little bit just to build up some excitement.

There's definitely a benefit to a long title reign, as it establishes a dominant (more often than not, heel) champion who is perceived to be unbeatable, and every challenge to the championship feels important.

However, reigns that run TOO long can be a detriment. I've kind of reached that point with Gunther's Intercontinental Championship run over the past few months. Don't get me wrong, his matches are still stellar and usually the best of the night, but he also hasn't had a serious threat to his belt since, what, Braun Strowman in January? Since then, it's been this sort of inexorable march toward September when he will break the Honky Tonk Man's record, and then his challenges will suddenly have meaning again.

Like, who's seriously believing that Gunther is going to lose his reign to Drew McIntyre a month before he breaks the record? Or that he'd drop it to Madcap Moss or Mustafa Ali or Matt Riddle along the way?

We can apply this to Roman and Rhea also.

Does anyone believe either of those are losing their titles before Mania next year? and Roman losing it at best a 50/50 considering everyone their grand mother and medevial relatives thought it was a guarantee this past Mania and they noped the f*** out of that.

And even before she won the title everyone and the entire dark ages knew Rhea Vs Becky was gonna be the only chance in hell Rhea ever has in losing that title.

It is a whole...NOTHING matters except how all of this ends and that is if they end at all...looking at Roman again.

[HMARK Center]

This is overthinking things; hot potato'ing, long reigns, 50/50 booking, whatever other terms we're throwing out there, are not all automatically good or bad. There's only one thing any of these ideas need in order to be effective, no matter how many people within a promotion are doing them: they need a goddamned point.

Once this current WWE era of "every champion holds their belt forever" hits its end, whatever that may look like, sure, go ahead and do some hot potato'ing...but don't just do it "because it's different" or "because it's unexpected". WWE booked like that for years and it sucked, as did promotions like TNA.

Do it because there's a purpose to what you're trying to accomplish. Maybe the person who beats, let's say, Gunther gets over big, but immediately loses their first title defense to a seemingly out of nowhere up and comer, but then wins the belt back pretty quickly from that same newbie. Ok! Assuming it's executed well, that would have served the purpose of getting that new wrestler established and over, while throwing the audience a surprise after seeing the same person hold the same belt for so long. Maybe have the world title hop around between three different wrestlers who are all in or breaking through to the main event for a little bit, but again, do it as a means of solidifying who they are, what their roles are, and where they sit in the roster pecking order; e.g. did one of the three win cleanly? Did one turn heel and cheat to get to the top? Did one use more violent means to get there? Has one become the clear "ace" of the group, and if so then what roles are the other two now in? Use it as a way to establish what their characters are, what motivates them, and how they're different from one another while pursuing the same goal.

When I look at WWE's current booking from the outside in, it doesn't seem very interesting to me; I see long title reigns without a lot of thought behind why they're happening (outside of maybe Gunther's) or benefits for most of the challengers. That said, apparently I don't speak for the majority! Their ratings are way up, and a huge reason is that people now view Roman Reigns the way they view the 90s Chicago Bulls or 2000s-2010s New England Patriots, and that's drawing pretty damn big. In that regard I can't really blame them for what they're doing, for this year it certainly seems to be working for them. But few of us get any richer off a promotion doing well business-wise, so I'm trying to keep this focused on creative critiques.

On that front, we need to stop essentializing most booking ideas as intrinsically good or bad, and think more about the context in which they're being used and whether they're fulfilling a creative purpose. When you start thinking about things that way, it can be pretty freeing; you stop worrying so much about "oh no, they're doing THIS again", and instead start thinking "oh, I wonder what that same 'this' will mean for this character's future". You also stop worrying about who's holding what belt or whatever and start thinking more about whether their reign is telling a story; you'd obviously still like your favorites to win the big belts because it's fun to cheer your favorites, but it's easier to accept if you see some kind of purpose at work.

In short: you can book any damn way you like and change it up on a dime if you so choose, but just make sure you're doing it with a goal in mind. Seems like current WWE with Triple H in charge would likely do that better than Vince-booked WWE, but I guess we'll see.

[sdoyle7798]

Jul 20, 2023 7:24:29 GMT -5 EoE: Well There's Your Problem said:

Jul 20, 2023 7:19:37 GMT -5 @sigmax said:

The benefit to hot potating a title is it makes things feel WAY more competitive.

The thing is, we spent years on this forum saying everyone being capable of beating everyone else in a highly competitive environment was a bad thing. “50/50 BOOKING DOESN’T CREATE STARS” and all that. What changed? Because I feel like I’ve missed something here.

I'd imagine we're getting a differet set of people who want the 50/50 booking back (phrased that way for simplicity, I know that's not a 100% accurate term).

[tirtefaa]

It's not the length or the person holding the title.

It's the value you put behind it. Make the moment matter and make it memorable.