Do we really need these Dark Title Matches?

[Roi]

I guess is like defending the title at NXT. I would mark my ass off if Neville randomly wins the US title

 

[PoPo]

Well you figure if people see that a title is being defended at a house show the amount of people at the show will increase. The likely hood of titles changing hand is slim but you still paid to see a good match which you more than likely will get.

 

[leojay]

Honestly, I highly doubt kids would be boo-ing if titles weren't on the line.

No, but that doesn't change the fact that they'll be excited for them when they are there.

Like I said, there are rarely any title matches even on RAW or Smackdown, and the fans still get into it.

Perhaps because Smackdown and RAW shows are broadcasted on TV, have better cards and have all of the top wrestlers cutting promo's? The house show I went to had matches like Jinder Mahal vs The Great Khali, Aksana vs Natalya and Heath Slater vs Zach Ryder. I think you can tell the difference between a house show and a TV Show just by looking at those matches.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it's much more exciting for kids who don't realize the title wouldn't change hands off the air. But kids don't go alone, and they certainly dont pay for their tickets themselves, or even know how to get a ticket.

Considering the people that pay for the kids tickets are usually the ones sitting on their phones the entire time playing solitaire waiting for the show to end, I really don't think they care about the predictability of the matches.

If title matches did actually sell, then why wouldn't WWE indicate there would be a title defense? That sounds unlike the marketing whores of WWE.

But they do. The WWE had advertisements going for at least three months before the house shows across Australia advertising the US Title and WWE Title matches.

I think house shows are just for the people the event is closest to. Title matches and top superstars aren't promised to be there, it's just icing on the cake.

You do realize that RAW and Smackdown is just one part of wrestlers schedule, right? ALL top stars are at house shows. It isn't just an icing on the cake, it's a guarantee.

There hasn't been one house show I've been too where it hasn't ended in a match between two top stars fighting for a world title.

 

[Farooq]

Titles have changed off air though guys....STOP IGNORING MY POST :angry:

 

[victor kwon]

No, but that doesn't change the fact that they'll be excited for them when they are there.

Perhaps because Smackdown and RAW shows are broadcasted on TV, have better cards and have all of the top wrestlers cutting promo's? The house show I went to had matches like Jinder Mahal vs The Great Khali, Aksana vs Natalya and Heath Slater vs Zach Ryder. I think you can tell the difference between a house show and a TV Show just by looking at those matches.

Considering the people that pay for the kids tickets are usually the ones sitting on their phones the entire time playing solitaire waiting for the show to end, I really don't think they care about the predictability of the matches

But they do. The WWE had advertisements going for at least three months before the house shows across Australia advertising the US Title and WWE Title matches.

You do realize that RAW and Smackdown is just one part of wrestlers schedule, right? ALL top stars are at house shows. It isn't just an icing on the cake, it's a guarantee.

There hasn't been one house show I've been too where it hasn't ended in a match between two top stars fighting for a world title.

Was it really necessary to quote every sentence separately?

First of all, I didn't realize you're in Australia. International advertising is a completely different story. And yes, I do know that wresters aren't limited to just RAW and Smackdown - in fact, you made my next point. You're wrong when you say that it's guaranteed that ALL top stars will be at the house shows. There's priority involved. These wrestlers do more than wrestle. For example, just recently CM Punk, AJ and a couple other stars were promoting over at a convention, and thus were absent during the house shows. Of course they didn't miss RAW or Smackdown. Or what about slightly-injured wrestlers? They typically show up or even compete at the televised shows, house shows not so much.

I just think it's rather presumptuous to say that house shows are merely for kids who don't know any better. Some people just want to see a show, and see their favorite wrestlers. Which is why I said title matches, regardless of the inclusion, are just icing on the cake.

 

[louissiscool]

Was it really necessary to quote every sentence separately?


I just think it's rather presumptuous to say that house shows are merely for kids who don't know any better. Some people just want to see a show, and see their favorite wrestlers. Which is why I said title matches, regardless of the inclusion, are just icing on the cake.

You wouldn't want a cake without icing though would ya.

 

[victor kwon]

You wouldn't want a cake without icing though would ya.

In this case, yes... Since at least in a non-title match, you don't know who the winner would be.

 

[Nano]

I guess is like defending the title at NXT. I would mark my ass off if Neville randomly wins the US title

I'd do the same. When they say someone is going to defend the title at NXT I can only think of the announcer saying "Here is your winner and the new US Champion, Adrian Neville!"