PDA

View Full Version : Should at least one title be defended every episode of RAW?



URATOOL
12-12-2011, 02:24 AM
Before we get the usual crying on and on about hot potato titles please read the title nice and slowly. I said defended, not won. Just rotate around the various belts making sure we see a title match every week.

tchocky360
12-12-2011, 02:51 AM
Apart from the odd special episode, I prefer the main titles to be defended on PPVs, otherwise it tends to lessen their importance. They'd never change hands on TV anyway except for maybe someone cashing in their briefcase. The result would be too predictable to be worth watching.

Raw/Smackdown are the set-ups of story for the PPV finish I feel. Get people interested in the rivalries on TV, see how it ends on the PPV.

United States and Intercontinental aren't held as high, and because the 'E knows rarely will people buy a PPV for these matches, they are more likely to change hands on a TV show. I'd be happier watch some more of these title matches but def not every week.

The Brown One
12-12-2011, 03:48 AM
It's almost a rarity that we see titles be defended on tv, and I'd like for it to stay that way. It's a bit of a shock everytime one of the GMs comes along and says "Dolph, you're gonna be defending your title....TONIGHT!" It still gets a big reaction out of the crowd, and if the titles are defended weekly, it would lose it's touch, even through rotations.

Mizfit
12-12-2011, 04:01 AM
No, as it...... I cant think of the right words, so I'll just say, it spoils the importance of title matches if there is one every week.

Dr. Death
12-12-2011, 07:13 AM
This was the great thing about the TV Title. It was made to be defended every time wrestling was on TV for the specific promotion. This is how they used to build prestige to the Championship Title, by having the Champ defend the belt every time he competed in the ring. Those days are over now, but one or two different Title matches a month, other than PPV, could potentially bring back interest in the Titles themselves. Especially if defended successfully and cleanly. With that being said, it wouldn't do to have it happen every week, just change it up a little.

The Brown One
12-12-2011, 07:33 AM
This was the great thing about the TV Title. It was made to be defended every time wrestling was on TV for the specific promotion. This is how they used to build prestige to the Championship Title, by having the Champ defend the belt every time he competed in the ring. Those days are over now, but one or two different Title matches a month, other than PPV, could potentially bring back interest in the Titles themselves. Especially if defended successfully and cleanly. With that being said, it wouldn't do to have it happen every week, just change it up a little.

Well said. It wouldn't hurt to have the IC title defended more frequently. Maybe at least once a month outside of PPVs. Cody is a good wrestler, but the title would be more prestigious if he defended it more often.

Dr. Death
12-12-2011, 07:36 AM
I agree with that line of thinking TBO.

Yano88
12-12-2011, 09:15 AM
Before we get the usual crying on and on about hot potato titles please read the title nice and slowly. I said defended, not won. Just rotate around the various belts making sure we see a title match every week.

No.

Both the quality of the show and the prestige of the titles will drop.

What would you think of weekly episodes where 80% of the times, the champ retains.

It would be so boring and it will make u hate both the champion and the championship.

It's already awfuls as it is right now... I mean: if there is a title match on Smackdown or Raw then it's safe to assume that the champ has 95% chances of defending the title.

LoGik
12-12-2011, 01:00 PM
not every week but maybe have the midcard titles defended more with longer matches.

URATOOL
12-12-2011, 03:20 PM
So with 5 current titles (WWE, WHC, IC, US, TT and D) the rotation would see each title defended an average of less than once a month and this is too much for you guys? It will devalue the title..... It will lose prestige of the title..... blah blah blah.....

You know what? I don't think some of the titles are defended enough. PPV go by without all the titles being on the line. Whilst I can't be bothered to look it up it feels like some of the titles go undefended way past the 30 rule.

tchocky360
12-12-2011, 05:39 PM
So with 5 current titles (WWE, WHC, IC, US, TT and D) the rotation would see each title defended an average of less than once a month and this is too much for you guys? It will devalue the title..... It will lose prestige of the title..... blah blah blah.....

You know what? I don't think some of the titles are defended enough. PPV go by without all the titles being on the line. Whilst I can't be bothered to look it up it feels like some of the titles go undefended way past the 30 rule.

Well there's not much point to your thread if you're going to ask for views on a matter, and then dismiss them as "blah blah".
People gave their reasons why they felt one way or the other.
If you don't like other people's opinions, maybe you should have just asked and answered this question by yourself in your own head.

URATOOL
12-12-2011, 05:51 PM
Well there's not much point to your thread if you're going to ask for views on a matter, and then dismiss them as "blah blah".
People gave their reasons why they felt one way or the other.
If you don't like other people's opinions, maybe you should have just asked and answered this question by yourself in your own head.

The blah blah blah was in reference to the devaluing crap that people have a broken record about. I love people's options and passion for them. But I don't think people should get stuck in such a rut. Some of the devalue brigade haven't even thought though the opinion they just blindly follow other who have said short reigns, multiple title changes etc.. MUST equal devalued. Maybe I should have just said baa baa baa instead. The sheeple would have understood me better then.

Rassling_Fan
12-12-2011, 05:55 PM
If there is a title defense every week, why would people buy PPVs? Every so often, sure. But not once a week. It'll also rush story lines even faster and people are complaining about that.

URATOOL
12-12-2011, 06:06 PM
If there is a title defense every week, why would people buy PPVs? Every so often, sure. But not once a week. It'll also rush story lines even faster and people are complaining about that.

*Bangs head on desk*

With the number of titles each title would only need to be defended once every 6 weeks! How is that rushing story lines. To be fair to them, even IMPACT have more TV based defences. I'd rather see the PPV list cut from 13 (yes more than one a month) down to about 8. Then have more title defences on the weekly shows. But the E is all about the dollar, so that's not gonna happen.

tchocky360
12-12-2011, 06:08 PM
The blah blah blah was in reference to the devaluing crap that people have a broken record about. I love people's options and passion for them. But I don't think people should get stuck in such a rut. Some of the devalue brigade haven't even thought though the opinion they just blindly follow other who have said short reigns, multiple title changes etc.. MUST equal devalued. Maybe I should have just said baa baa baa instead. The sheeple would have understood me better then.

I agree with you that the TV defences wouldn't devalue the titles, but I do feel regular defences would possibly devalue the PPVs themselves. Especially having the WWE/WHC defended regularly on TV.

I'm happy to see the US/IC/Tag belts out more on TV if it's used as storyline, but not just for the sake of having them defended

Rassling_Fan
12-12-2011, 07:00 PM
With the number of titles each title would only need to be defended once every 6 weeks! How is that rushing story lines.
1 Title defense every six weeks. PPVs every 3-4 weeks (if we're lucky). PPVs has multiple Title Matches (last PPV for example: 2 Big Titles, US Title, Diva's Title). Let's say the title rotation goes like this: IC, Tag, WWE, US, Diva, WHC. And let's start with January of next month as an example.
Jan 2 - IC.
Jan 9 - Tag.
Jan 16 - WWE.
Jan 23 - US.
Jan 29 - Royal Rumble (WWE, WHC, Diva). We just had a WWE title match two weeks ago. Is it going to be a rematch of the 16th? A new opponent? Was the 16th just a throw away match? Was there a sudden title change? Let's continue...
Jan 30 - Diva. The Diva title gets another title defense the next day. Against who? Is it a rematch? Is it a random opponent?
Feb 6 - WHC. A week between the PPV and this.

See the problem? Even with a six week schedule we'll be seeing conflicts and repeats.


To be fair to them, even IMPACT have more TV based defences.
And look how well it worked for them. Barely anyone besides the IWC fans know about them, a third of them actually watch it, and virtually a 10th of those even buy the PPV.


I'd rather see the PPV list cut from 13 (yes more than one a month) down to about 8. Then have more title defences on the weekly shows. But the E is all about the dollar, so that's not gonna happen.
Exactly, about the dollar. And a title match a week isn't financially good for them.

URATOOL
12-12-2011, 07:43 PM
1 Title defense every six weeks. PPVs every 3-4 weeks (if we're lucky). PPVs has multiple Title Matches (last PPV for example: 2 Big Titles, US Title, Diva's Title). Let's say the title rotation goes like this: IC, Tag, WWE, US, Diva, WHC. And let's start with January of next month as an example.
Jan 2 - IC.
Jan 9 - Tag.
Jan 16 - WWE.
Jan 23 - US.
Jan 29 - Royal Rumble (WWE, WHC, Diva). We just had a WWE title match two weeks ago. Is it going to be a rematch of the 16th? A new opponent? Was the 16th just a throw away match? Was there a sudden title change? Let's continue...
Jan 30 - Diva. The Diva title gets another title defense the next day. Against who? Is it a rematch? Is it a random opponent?
Feb 6 - WHC. A week between the PPV and this.

See the problem? Even with a six week schedule we'll be seeing conflicts and repeats.

You are being to rigid in your attempt to dismiss the idea. The order of defenses wouldn't have to be constant and could be scheduled to complement the planned PPV titles. A match (that isn't planned for the PPV) could scheduled for the week before the PPV and end in a no contest. Then the GM makes it a No DQ match at the PPV. You could even have series matches from time to time. For example if the US title wasn't up for grabs at TLC then Ryder and Ziggler could have a best of three series over the following 3 RAWs. It's not hard mate. If you just stop thinking inside the box.


And look how well it worked for them. Barely anyone besides the IWC fans know about them, a third of them actually watch it, and virtually a 10th of those even buy the PPV.

IMPACT whilst having it's faults isn't all that bad and has had seem really good title matches on TV over the last 6 months. Do you have the states on IMPACT and WWE weekly viewer to PPV viewer ratios??


Exactly, about the dollar. And a title match a week isn't financially good for them.

Quantify your statement please. Prove to me that people, on mass, would buy PPVs less if their were also some more title defenses on TV as well. If the PPVs are booked right people will still buy them.

Rassling_Fan
12-12-2011, 09:25 PM
You are being to rigid in your attempt to dismiss the idea. The order of defenses wouldn't have to be constant and could be scheduled to complement the planned PPV titles.
That right there conflicts with your "Once every Six week" idea you started with.


A match (that isn't planned for the PPV) could scheduled for the week before the PPV and end in a no contest. Then the GM makes it a No DQ match at the PPV.
1- That happens now. People complain because there's no build up to the showdown. 2- That would mean you're promoting a PPV with less matches announced. Nobody likes that. Too boot, it'll be hard to gain more interest for those contemplating on getting it but needed something extra.


You could even have series matches from time to time. For example if the US title wasn't up for grabs at TLC then Ryder and Ziggler could have a best of three series over the following 3 RAWs. It's not hard mate. If you just stop thinking inside the box.
That'll be predictable. If one guy wins, you'll see the next guy win and then a rubber match. They'll skip the first two weeks to see the third. And there goes another problem. What about Smackdown? Do they have to follow the weekly title matches as well? If not, what's to get people watching Smackdown? Not to mention two of those titles are still technically Smackdown's.


IMPACT whilst having it's faults isn't all that bad and has had seem really good title matches on TV over the last 6 months. Do you have the states on IMPACT and WWE weekly viewer to PPV viewer ratios??
You can see WWE's ratios by their publicly released ratings and PPV buys. TNA doesn't release their buyrates, so your only source are insiders. And they're not favorable.


Quantify your statement please. Prove to me that people, on mass, would buy PPVs less if their were also some more title defenses on TV as well. If the PPVs are booked right people will still buy them.
Example 1 - Lets pretend the Rock is a title. He had a match at Survivor Series against the Miz and Truth. Thanks to him, that PPV got the highest buys it got recently. But lets say he had a match against Truth a week before the PPV. What would be their reason to buy it when they got their Rock match for free on TV?
Example 2 - TNA Bound for Glory. Roode Vs Angle. A great match that ended unfavorably for Roode. If Roode won, with the build up for the tournament and him following, could have been an important moment for TNA up there with Styles winning for the first time against Jarrett. Instead, the Impact after, Storm wins the title. A week or two later, Roode wins the title. For those who were contemplating on ordering the Replay, what would be their reason to get it for a title match that ended with the guy failing, when you can see him succeed for free?

eyehatecena
12-12-2011, 09:31 PM
So with 5 current titles (WWE, WHC, IC, US, TT and D) the rotation would see each title defended an average of less than once a month and this is too much for you guys? It will devalue the title..... It will lose prestige of the title..... blah blah blah.....

You know what? I don't think some of the titles are defended enough. PPV go by without all the titles being on the line. Whilst I can't be bothered to look it up it feels like some of the titles go undefended way past the 30 rule.

You are correct- some are not defended enough- actually I agree with most of what you have said in all your post in this thread.

As far as Impact and titles being defended on TV- I think they are handling it pretty good- it adds to the shows.

IrkenInvader
12-12-2011, 09:40 PM
No it doesn't make sense to do it. The way you make the Champions seem more prestigious is by building feuds around the Title. When every single title feud is about one wrestler not liking the other one it takes the attention off of the Championship. Which makes the matches more about who has the shiny belt instead of being the next one to be added the list of legends who won the title before you.

URATOOL
12-12-2011, 10:23 PM
That right there conflicts with your "Once every Six week" idea you started with.

Rigid thinking again. The once every six weeks would be the AVERAGE!!

URATOOL
12-12-2011, 10:27 PM
1- That happens now. People complain because there's no build up to the showdown. 2- That would mean you're promoting a PPV with less matches announced. Nobody likes that. Too boot, it'll be hard to gain more interest for those contemplating on getting it but needed something extra.

1- People also complain about some title going undefended for ages. 2- Often some PPV matches aren't announced until the week before the PPV or even the night of the PPV. So your point is not absolute again...

URATOOL
12-12-2011, 10:31 PM
That'll be predictable. If one guy wins, you'll see the next guy win and then a rubber match. They'll skip the first two weeks to see the third. And there goes another problem. What about Smackdown? Do they have to follow the weekly title matches as well? If not, what's to get people watching Smackdown? Not to mention two of those titles are still technically Smackdown's.

Why would they be predictable? Because YOU think they would have to go a certain way. They could just mix it up a bit you know. Make a series WIN WIN and then have the 3rd match a pride only match (no one wants to go down 3 nil).

Are you deliberately being obtuse. I mentioned RAW as an EXAMPLE. Not in the sense of 'This only applies to RAW cause I only mentioned RAW'.

URATOOL
12-12-2011, 10:32 PM
You can see WWE's ratios by their publicly released ratings and PPV buys. TNA doesn't release their buyrates, so your only source are insiders. And they're not favorable.

So you are basing your statement on information that is only 50% available (from a formal source). Yeah, that's a solid argument!

URATOOL
12-12-2011, 10:39 PM
Example 1 - Lets pretend the Rock is a title. He had a match at Survivor Series against the Miz and Truth. Thanks to him, that PPV got the highest buys it got recently. But lets say he had a match against Truth a week before the PPV. What would be their reason to buy it when they got their Rock match for free on TV?
Example 2 - TNA Bound for Glory. Roode Vs Angle. A great match that ended unfavorably for Roode. If Roode won, with the build up for the tournament and him following, could have been an important moment for TNA up there with Styles winning for the first time against Jarrett. Instead, the Impact after, Storm wins the title. A week or two later, Roode wins the title. For those who were contemplating on ordering the Replay, what would be their reason to get it for a title match that ended with the guy failing, when you can see him succeed for free?

Example 1: Pointless example. The Rock is clearly an exceptional situation. We are talking about this as a standard practice across the year. Clearly they would keep such a big event for the PPV. So for those weeks we see one of the other 5 titles being defended.

Example 2: Oh dear God! You are clutching at straws now. Reply buys are very limited anyway. With spoilers and reports about PPV, the rebuy rates are often affected by the PPV results. Who buys replays after more than a couple of days of the PPV?? So have the first title defense after the PPV be for a belt that wasn't defended at the PPV. It's all about the booking fella.

wrestlingfan66513
12-12-2011, 10:41 PM
Well said. It wouldn't hurt to have the IC title defended more frequently. Maybe at least once a month outside of PPVs. Cody is a good wrestler, but the title would be more prestigious if he defended it more often.

When was the last time Cody defended, HITC?

URATOOL
12-12-2011, 10:43 PM
It's almost a rarity that we see titles be defended on tv, and I'd like for it to stay that way. It's a bit of a shock everytime one of the GMs comes along and says "Dolph, you're gonna be defending your title....TONIGHT!" It still gets a big reaction out of the crowd, and if the titles are defended weekly, it would lose it's touch, even through rotations.

So you don't want titles to be defended much out side of PPVs.


Well said. It wouldn't hurt to have the IC title defended more frequently. Maybe at least once a month outside of PPVs. Cody is a good wrestler, but the title would be more prestigious if he defended it more often.

Oh hang on. You do.....

Rassling_Fan
12-12-2011, 11:03 PM
What's up with the multiple postings for one post?


Rigid thinking again. The once every six weeks would be the AVERAGE!!
And that average is reduced to four thanks to Smackdown's titles.


1- People also complain about some title going undefended for ages. 2- Often some PPV matches aren't announced until the week before the PPV or even the night of the PPV. So your point is not absolute again...
1 - Of the six titles, three are constantly on PPVs (WWE, WHC, and Diva). US gets more defenses and IC is getting a defense this PPV. The last time it was defended it was in HIAC, which on that week he defended it three times against 12 different people. The only one like that is the Tag Title, which the division is in a poor state. 2 - And people complain about that, which is the point I said. Too boot, look how well those PPVs sold.


Why would they be predictable? Because YOU think they would have to go a certain way. They could just mix it up a bit you know. Make a series WIN WIN and then have the 3rd match a pride only match (no one wants to go down 3 nil).
They call it a best of three for a reason. Having a third match for pride means also that title isn't defended (since he defended it in a best of three). Thus another title to defend.


Are you deliberately being obtuse. I mentioned RAW as an EXAMPLE. Not in the sense of 'This only applies to RAW cause I only mentioned RAW'.
But it still means only 4 titles, as the WHC and IC are Smackdown belts. Too boot, they still want Smackdown to get ratings as well, which having all the title matches on Raw will effect them as well.


So you are basing your statement on information that is only 50% available (from a formal source). Yeah, that's a solid argument!
Considering all your arguments are negating mines with no backing, that's still more than you got.


Example 1: Pointless example. The Rock is clearly an exceptional situation. We are talking about this as a standard practice across the year. Clearly they would keep such a big event for the PPV. So for those weeks we see one of the other 5 titles being defended.
That's the thing. To give the title prestigue, it has to be treated as a big event. As IrkenInvader said...


The way you make the Champions seem more prestigious is by building feuds around the Title. When every single title feud is about one wrestler not liking the other one it takes the attention off of the Championship. Which makes the matches more about who has the shiny belt instead of being the next one to be added the list of legends who won the title before you.

Should the titles get defended more, sure. A title match a week is not the answer. One title match per month for all the titles would be a better choice. The ones for the PPVs will get their build while the ones not on PPV get some love.


Example 2: Oh dear God! You are clutching at straws now. Reply buys are very limited anyway. With spoilers and reports about PPV, the rebuy rates are often affected by the PPV results. Who buys replays after more than a couple of days of the PPV?? So have the first title defense after the PPV be for a belt that wasn't defended at the PPV. It's all about the booking fella.
And how is having a title shot a week good booking? Explain that. Book 2 months using your method. See if you can get Raw interesting while having Smackdown and PPVs not be effected.

URATOOL
12-12-2011, 11:49 PM
What's up with the multiple postings for one post?


And that average is reduced to four thanks to Smackdown's titles.


1 - Of the six titles, three are constantly on PPVs (WWE, WHC, and Diva). US gets more defenses and IC is getting a defense this PPV. The last time it was defended it was in HIAC, which on that week he defended it three times against 12 different people. The only one like that is the Tag Title, which the division is in a poor state. 2 - And people complain about that, which is the point I said. Too boot, look how well those PPVs sold.


They call it a best of three for a reason. Having a third match for pride means also that title isn't defended (since he defended it in a best of three). Thus another title to defend.


But it still means only 4 titles, as the WHC and IC are Smackdown belts. Too boot, they still want Smackdown to get ratings as well, which having all the title matches on Raw will effect them as well.


Considering all your arguments are negating mines with no backing, that's still more than you got.


That's the thing. To give the title prestigue, it has to be treated as a big event. As IrkenInvader said...



Should the titles get defended more, sure. A title match a week is not the answer. One title match per month for all the titles would be a better choice. The ones for the PPVs will get their build while the ones not on PPV get some love.


And how is having a title shot a week good booking? Explain that. Book 2 months using your method. See if you can get Raw interesting while having Smackdown and PPVs not be effected.

I'm gonna stop here fella. You are clearly missing some of my points. Whether it's deliberate or not, I'm past caring. If you wish to chalk this down as a glorious internet victory then be my guest. I don't explain my point of view on the internet more than a couple of times. Rewriting the same thing whilst the other person goes round in circles is a waste of my time.

It's rare that I actually get this bored during a forum debate. But I can honestly say that you inability to grasp certain concepts time and time again, have resulted in making your overly long replies unreadable.........*snoooooooze* Zzzz Zzzz