Earning a title shot by beating the champion

[Dolph'sZiggler]

Anyone else hate this 'logic' ? It seems like this is WWE's go to way to 'set up feuds', especially in the midcard where it happens at least 90% of the time we get a title change. How does this make sense? 1.) More of the champion jobbing, which is fucking dumb. 2.) Why not just have the guy go over in an initial title match? Would be less telegraphed at least, and you don't have to have the champ job THREE times (Non title match, title match, rematch clause)

Honestly though, why should a mid card champ compete in non-title matches? World champs I can see, but IC/US champs? For what reason are they in a match and the title isn't on the line? It doesn't make any sense.

It also happens a lot in the tag division. "oh man, a win over the champs puts them right in the title picture!!!" errr, no, it should make them champions...

Most recently obviously this is the formula they used to have Kofi take the belt from Cesaro.

So does anyone else hate this as much as or do, or are you guys cool with it?

 

[Leo C]

I suppose it should only be used occasionally. As in a match with a heel champ vs an underdog, for example (Ramon vs 123 Kid), where the guy isn't given a title shot because he's considered a jobber but gets an upset win which leads to a title match later on (although I'd probably end it with the heel champ retaining again most of the times in this case). But out of specific situations like this it is quite stupid, yes.

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

I suppose it should only be used occasionally. As in a match with a heel champ vs an underdog, for example (Ramon vs 123 Kid), where the guy isn't given a title shot because he's considered a jobber but gets an upset win which leads to a title match later on (although I'd probably end it with the heel champ retaining again most of the times in this case). But out of specific situations like this it is quite stupid, yes.

Yea if it wasn't overused and you do it properly like in that instance it is fine. It isn't used like like though. Why, for instance, would Kofi, an 8 trillion time mid card champ, need a win over Cesaro to earn his title shot? Cesaro as mid card champ already should have been defending his title in that initial match.

 

[Leo C]

Yea if it wasn't overused and you do it properly like in that instance it is fine. It isn't used like like though. Why, for instance, would Kofi, an 8 trillion time mid card champ, need a win over Cesaro to earn his title shot? Cesaro as mid card champ already should have been defending his title in that initial match.

For sure, just another lazy booking ploy they use to book WWE's "midcard".

 

[Pop Tatari]

Yeah it is kind of dumb and makes the champs look weak as fuck and the whole point of a champion is to look unbeatable. I think beating the champ in a non title match earning a title shot should be a rarity. Other then that it should always be Number one contender matches.

I think the reason why wwe do this is that a lot of the roster is poorly booked so it would make no sense having contender matches

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

It is definitely a part of a larger problem that is they tend to book champions like shit, especially heel champions. #wwelogic says, "oh, they don't need to be booked strongly. They are already the champions! How much stronger can they look? And think how strong contender A will look with a win over the champ!" meanwhile mid card champs, including the WHC, become jobbers who win once a month when it comes time to put the magical piece of tin on the line at the PPV.

Champions need to be booked more like champions.

 

[Rogue]

Now that I think of it,it's been a long ass time since WWE actually took a jobber and made him rise through the ranks to earn to a no.1 contendership match which is fucking stupid because it builds a backstory behind a title feud. The whole "earning a title shot by beating the champion" thing is just a lazy way of booking and it completely takes away from the prestige of a title.

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

Now that I think of it,it's been a long ass time since WWE actually took a jobber and made him rise through the ranks to earn to a no.1 contendership match which is fucking stupid because it builds a backstory behind a title feud. The whole "earning a title shot by beating the champion" thing is just a lazy way of booking and it completely takes away from the prestige of a title.

Probably because "jobbers" in the classic meaning of the term don't really exist anymore. Unless you count Hawkins & JTG.

I think the closest I can think of as far as a rookie rising the ranks would be Miz, but he never really jobbed. He started off pretty much picking up wins at the lower part of the card before teaming with Morrison.

 

[Rogue]

Probably because "jobbers" in the classic meaning of the term don't really exist anymore. Unless you count Hawkins & JTG.

I think the closest I can think of as far as a rookie rising the ranks would be Miz, but he never really jobbed. He started off pretty much picking up wins at the lower part of the card before teaming with Morrison.

Mid-carders would be a better term to use for this appropriate situation.

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

Yea guys tend to either start off w/ a mega push or get stuck in the midcard. Hopefully Ziggler can be the first guy in a while to actually rise up the ranks. Punk is the last guy to do it, Bryan sort of did it though you can argue he is still stuck in the midcard today as a part of Hell No.

Just look at the main eventers today. Del Rio, Sheamus, Ryback, The Shield (hard to not call them main eventers at this point) ect all started with rocket ship pushes towards the top.

 

[Lockard 23]

I agree with Leo C that it can be used right when used sparingly.

Take the Bret Hart/Owen Hart feud and match at Wrestlemania 10, for example. The show opened with Owen scoring a huge upset victory over Bret, and then Bret won the title at the end of the show, with Owen there looking on, knowing he just defeated the guy who's now world champion earlier in the night. Now, re-imagine this so that it doesn't take place at Wrestlemania and so that Bret is already world champion when Bret and Owen face for the first time. Owen comes out and says he wants a title shot, and Bret says he's not qualified for one and he's not gonna fight his own brother anyway, but Owen talks Bret into giving him one if he can beat him in a non-title match first. Bret agrees, thinking Owen will never defeat him, but then he does. Bang, Owen gets his title shot and this sets up their title match (rematch) at a PPV, with the fact that Owen already pinned his brother Bret as the backstory, on top of the natural brotherly rivalry they have going already.

A scenario like this makes good use of this sort of booking, but they don't play it like this most of the time and they overplay it in general (which is the main issue.) They just job out champions because they're so obsessed with 50/50 booking with most everyone, it seems. And there's been times in the past where the guys pinning the champions don't even get title shots afterwards.

 

[Snowman1]

If you get rid of this kind of booking, what will they replace it with?
This booking: R-Truth goes over Barrett, earning him a title shot
What booking they'd do otherwise: R-Truth earns a title shot out of the blue with no explanation.

Yeah it's stupid for all the reasons you said, but right now if you get bread crumbs out of WWE's booking, savor them and don't beg for bread.

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

If you get rid of this kind of booking, what will they replace it with?
This booking: R-Truth goes over Barrett, earning him a title shot
What booking they'd do otherwise: R-Truth earns a title shot out of the blue with no explanation.

Yeah it's stupid for all the reasons you said, but right now if you get bread crumbs out of WWE's booking, savor them and don't beg for bread.

I would rather it come out of the blue. At least then the champions don't have t job *quite* as often.

 

[Donald Trump_]

Yeah, it's pretty stupid. Dislike it.