Does the guarantee of a title shot devalue the Rumble match itself

[The GOAT]

The Royal Rumble doesn't generally elevate stars any longer.
The last non-main eventer to win the Royal Rumble was Alberto Del Rio in 2011.
Before that, you have to go back to 2006 to see WWE elevate anybody by winning the Royal Rumble.

With MITB, every year except 2009, WWE has elevated a (at least one) complete midcarder by virtue of winning the ladder match.

That's my issue with the MITB match at this point - other than the fact that I'm burned out by MITB matches in general due to the over-saturation of them, I find it lazy and uninspiring that their way of always elevating a new superstar now is by having them win the MITB match. Worse than that is the fact that other than the failure of a select few, I hate that so many guys' first world championship victories has to be the result of cashing in on a wounded opponent. It's cool and works brilliantly sometimes (Edge in 2006 for example), but it gets old when it happens all the time.

I know they won't do it since it's one of their bigger PPVs now, but I wouldn't mind them dropping the match entirely and only bringing it back on occasion.

 

[Leo C]

That's my issue with the MITB match at this point - other than the fact that I'm burned out by MITB matches in general due to the over-saturation of them, I find it lazy and uninspiring that their way of always elevating a new superstar now is by having them win the MITB match. Worse than that is the fact that other than the failure of a select few, I hate that so many guys' first world championship victories has to be the result of cashing in on a wounded opponent. It's cool and works brilliantly sometimes (Edge in 2006 for example), but it gets old when it happens all the time.

I know they won't do it since it's one of their bigger PPVs now, but I wouldn't mind them dropping the match entirely and only bringing it back on occasion.

Agreed on MITB. It kinda takes away that thing where guys work to build their way up the card to then get to the main event to then get to the World title. Now they're in the midcard and just win the belt. That I think devalues the belt, or at least is kinda stupid. I mean, you think about how guys like Swagger and Ziggler are former World champs and it's just odd (not that I don't think Dolph deserves a main event push, but he's normally booked as a midcard jobber, we know very well).

And as far as the Rumble goes, well, I don't think it devalues the match. It may make it a bit more predictable, but I for one think it's a lot better than just having a wacky Battle Royal for the hell of it. It wouldn't be absurd to do it but the way it is done is better imo.

 

[Red Rain]

That's my issue with the MITB match at this point - other than the fact that I'm burned out by MITB matches in general due to the over-saturation of them, I find it lazy and uninspiring that their way of always elevating a new superstar now is by having them win the MITB match. Worse than that is the fact that other than the failure of a select few, I hate that so many guys' first world championship victories has to be the result of cashing in on a wounded opponent. It's cool and works brilliantly sometimes (Edge in 2006 for example), but it gets old when it happens all the time.

I know they won't do it since it's one of their bigger PPVs now, but I wouldn't mind them dropping the match entirely and only bringing it back on occasion.

Agreed on MITB. It kinda takes away that thing where guys work to build their way up the card to then get to the main event to then get to the World title. Now they're in the midcard and just win the belt. That I think devalues the belt, or at least is kinda stupid. I mean, you think about how guys like Swagger and Ziggler are former World champs and it's just odd (not that I don't think Dolph deserves a main event push, but he's normally booked as a midcard jobber, we know very well).

And as far as the Rumble goes, well, I don't think it devalues the match. It may make it a bit more predictable, but I for one think it's a lot better than just having a wacky Battle Royal for the hell of it. It wouldn't be absurd to do it but the way it is done is better imo.

I disagree with both of you completely.
The MITB cash in is the only reason I even bother watching that crappy company anymore.
I'm not going to knitpick in what is, without fail, a very hot and dramatic moment.
Part of the glamour of the MITB cash in is the fact he didn't scratch and claw to win the da*n thing.
The heat on the new champion, moving forward, is fresh and welcoming.

Every MITB winner worked day in and day out to even be considered for the honor of retrieving the briefcase.
Climbing the ladder is a metaphor and, though you downplay it, are more interesting than the lame builds WWE inorganically delivers year in and year out.

 

[The GOAT]

I disagree with both of you completely.
The MITB cash in is the only reason I even bother watching that crappy company anymore.
I'm not going to knitpick in what is, without fail, a very hot and dramatic moment.
Part of the glamour of the MITB cash in is the fact he didn't scratch and claw to win the da*n thing.
The heat on the new champion, moving forward, is fresh and welcoming.

Every MITB winner worked day in and day out to even be considered for the honor of retrieving the briefcase.
Climbing the ladder is a metaphor and, though you downplay it, are more interesting than the lame builds WWE inorganically delivers year in and year out.

What was lame about Shawn Michaels' climb to the top in 1996? His victory over Bret Hart at Wrestlemania 12 would have meant slightly less if he had already cashed in and won the title for a short period the year before. Same for Austin's rise in 1998. Or Batista and Cena's rise in 2005. Daniel Bryan may have already won the title before, but his road to victory at Wrestlemania 30 still proved WWE can book someone's journey to winning the strap right when they want to (putting aside the fact that they were sort of forced into it by the fans in Bryan's case.)

I don't mind MITB matches, but always relying on them to crown someone a world champion for the first time is lazy booking to me. That's why I don't mind it when an already established star (Cena, Kane, Orton, etc.) wins the briefcase, or when an uncrowned world champion fails in their attempts at cashing in (Sandow, etc.) It shakes things up and makes them less predictable and avoids always having a superstar's inaugural world title win begin the same old way.

 

[Snowman1]

Would prefer if WWE had one way to create a new star than 0

 

[Leo C]

I disagree with both of you completely.
The MITB cash in is the only reason I even bother watching that crappy company anymore.
I'm not going to knitpick in what is, without fail, a very hot and dramatic moment.
Part of the glamour of the MITB cash in is the fact he didn't scratch and claw to win the da*n thing.
The heat on the new champion, moving forward, is fresh and welcoming.

Every MITB winner worked day in and day out to even be considered for the honor of retrieving the briefcase.
Climbing the ladder is a metaphor and, though you downplay it, are more interesting than the lame builds WWE inorganically delivers year in and year out.

I think the briefcase deal is a good angle, as I said before. It's just that doing it every year (which was even worse when they had two cases) gets tiring, especially when (as Lock said) it's normally the old deal "well yay he just won the World title over a dude who was beat up previously", and it gets even worse when they do the favor of booking the champ poorly (Swagger, Ziggler, Del Rio, Miz towards the end), because then the guy didn't even become a star, really. Plus they also have the habit of jobbing the guy when he has the briefcase, for whatever reason (which they don't always do, but occasionally). I think it's a very cool concept but the primary way to create new stars would ideally be the traditional booking of a rising star, which has also proven to last longer.

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

I think the briefcase deal is a good angle, as I said before. It's just that doing it every year (which was even worse when they had two cases) gets tiring, especially when (as Lock said) it's normally the old deal "well yay he just won the World title over a dude who was beat up previously", and it gets even worse when they do the favor of booking the champ poorly (Swagger, Ziggler, Del Rio, Miz towards the end), because then the guy didn't even become a star, really. Plus they also have the habit of jobbing the guy when he has the briefcase, for whatever reason (which they don't always do, but occasionally). I think it's a very cool concept but the primary way to create new stars would ideally be the traditional booking of a rising star, which has also proven to last longer.

This seems like a bunch of issues with how they book MITB/the winner much moreso than the concept itself. The concept is great, WWE"s shit ass execution generally is not.

Ziggler's cash in was a great moment, you can't really fault the MITB match, concept, briefcase, ect with what happened after that. Thank Jack Thwagger for kicking him in the face.

WWE should NOT job guys out with the briefcase. That is anti-building a guy up to be ready for primetime. Guys with the briefcase should be in storylines and win matches.

WWE should mix up how the briefcase is cashed in. If you have a young, up and coming face he could open up Raw by challenging the champion. Assuming you kept the match under wraps it would catch everyone off guard because we are conditioned on when to expect a cash in attempt, generally when the champ is in peril we all start predicting the cash in.

 

[Leo C]

This seems like a bunch of issues with how they book MITB/the winner much moreso than the concept itself. The concept is great, WWE"s shit ass execution generally is not.

Ziggler's cash in was a great moment, you can't really fault the MITB match, concept, briefcase, ect with what happened after that. Thank Jack Thwagger for kicking him in the face.

WWE should NOT job guys out with the briefcase. That is anti-building a guy up to be ready for primetime. Guys with the briefcase should be in storylines and win matches.

WWE should mix up how the briefcase is cashed in. If you have a young, up and coming face he could open up Raw by challenging the champion. Assuming you kept the match under wraps it would catch everyone off guard because we are conditioned on when to expect a cash in attempt, generally when the champ is in peril we all start predicting the cash in.

I did point out mostly booking issues but I think even if they did a better booking job it would still get old after a while. I mean, how many ways are there that they can mix it up? I think it would, in fact, improve it if they did open challenges more often (I can only remember Cena and RVD), but other than that I don't see much more.

 

[Snowman1]

I guess the best way to book a heel MITB winner is much in the way they have Rollins. They used the briefcase to create a legitimate reason to hate him while he's proven he can win matches clean in the meantime...

actually ignore this post, that's how they should be treating every heel :dawg:

Wonder if Lesnar helps since we're not going "How could he cash in!? Could this be the month?" every PPV

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

I did point out mostly booking issues but I think even if they did a better booking job it would still get old after a while. I mean, how many ways are there that they can mix it up? I think it would, in fact, improve it if they did open challenges more often (I can only remember Cena and RVD), but other than that I don't see much more.

Cena and RVD both planned the match ahead of time, right? I was referring to the briefcase holder calling them down to a match out of the blue, which would be different to running down when they've just had a match or saying "we're going to have the match next week on Raw" like Cena did.

I think they could do more where the briefcase holder feuds with someone else and the briefcase somehow winds up on the line. I know I know, it is corny when the face puts up the briefcase in a match when he stands nothing to gain, but good writing can fix that.

Anything is going to eventually boil down to a certain formula in wrestling and begin to feel repetitious, but MITB is the freshest idea in wrestling in decades by my estimation. WWE has gotten lazy with it, but they can do a lot more. Even if the "wounded champion" routine is overdone, it isn't the main underlying issue with past MITB winners, it is their booking before and after the cash in that has slurped major dong. The other biggest issue that was going to lead to over saturation has already been remedied, and that was having 2 MITB winners each year. Now that it is down to one they can easily keep it fresh moving forward just by mixing up the types of personalities who win it.

 

[Prince Bálor]

I guess the best way to book a heel MITB winner is much in the way they have Rollins. They used the briefcase to create a legitimate reason to hate him while he's proven he can win matches clean in the meantime...

actually ignore this post, that's how they should be treating every heel :dawg:

Wonder if Lesnar helps since we're not going "How could he cash in!? Could this be the month?" every PPV

Agreed.

I'd mark out if he (successfully) cashed in at WM31 on whoever is the champion.

 

[Leo C]

Cena and RVD both planned the match ahead of time, right? I was referring to the briefcase holder calling them down to a match out of the blue, which would be different to running down when they've just had a match or saying "we're going to have the match next week on Raw" like Cena did.

I think they could do more where the briefcase holder feuds with someone else and the briefcase somehow winds up on the line. I know I know, it is corny when the face puts up the briefcase in a match when he stands nothing to gain, but good writing can fix that.

Anything is going to eventually boil down to a certain formula in wrestling and begin to feel repetitious, but MITB is the freshest idea in wrestling in decades by my estimation. WWE has gotten lazy with it, but they can do a lot more. Even if the "wounded champion" routine is overdone, it isn't the main underlying issue with past MITB winners, it is their booking before and after the cash in that has slurped major dong. The other biggest issue that was going to lead to over saturation has already been remedied, and that was having 2 MITB winners each year. Now that it is down to one they can easily keep it fresh moving forward just by mixing up the types of personalities who win it.

I do agree that everything is bound to get repetitive at some point, it is wrestling, yeah. I also don't think MITB should be scrapped or anything like that, and indeed the fact that Swagger winning the belt sounds ridiculous at this point isn't because of MITB but booking. In fact, in an ideal world where they can book something right, MITB is pretty much alright. But the way they do it, the wounded champ stuff, even if the guy is booked well after, gets old. I think something else that would help would be giving the case to established guys as well, because I think it would kinda feel like the go-to route towards the main event instead of rising the regular way.

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

I do agree that everything is bound to get repetitive at some point, it is wrestling, yeah. I also don't think MITB should be scrapped or anything like that, and indeed the fact that Swagger winning the belt sounds ridiculous at this point isn't because of MITB but booking. In fact, in an ideal world where they can book something right, MITB is pretty much alright. But the way they do it, the wounded champ stuff, even if the guy is booked well after, gets old. I think something else that would help would be giving the case to established guys as well, because I think it would kinda feel like the go-to route towards the main event instead of rising the regular way.

Nothing is too hard to do in wrestling. The wounded champ shit is ridiculous and stale at this point, so 2015 MITB and 2016 MITB winners should be faces. They won't have to resort to those tactics and come 2017 nobody will be bitching about wounded champ cash ins by the time we see a heel doing it again.

 

[Snowman1]

Agreed.

I'd mark out if he (successfully) cashed in at WM31 on whoever is the champion.

In storyline, it was Rollins who wanted the Cena vs Orton match to be for the #1 Contendership, that's the only thing that makes sense for them to give the "hated" Cena a title shot. So I'm expecting the cash-in to be at the Royal Rumble but then there's no good way to execute it. Weird.

With Reigns hurt, the only "new generation" idea is for Ambrose to win RR and beat Brock at WM just for Rollins to cash in on him? :happy:

 

[Prince Bálor]

In storyline, it was Rollins who wanted the Cena vs Orton match to be for the #1 Contendership, that's the only thing that makes sense for them to give the "hated" Cena a title shot. So I'm expecting the cash-in to be at the Royal Rumble but then there's no good way to execute it. Weird.

With Reigns hurt, the only "new generation" idea is for Ambrose to win RR and beat Brock at WM just for Rollins to cash in on him? :happy:

Can't say I wouldn't love seeing Ambrose getting the push and winning the WWE-WHC from Lesnar. All this time I've been on the 'push the much more talented Ambrose' train. Even if he lost it to Seth the way Bryan did to Orton last year, I would still love it. I'd love a cash in at Mania, purely because it's never been done before.