Future Scramble?

[NinoBrown]

I haven't seen the scramble match yet but when I first heard about it, I thought it was WWE's best bootleg copy of TNA's King of the Mountain Match. It didn't really sound good on paper but how was the product?

Did you enjoy it, is it a fan favourite now or is it a one time thing?
Would it work a second time around, do you see it in the future?

 

[J]

I didn't catch it myself. but from what I've heard people complaining about it, the only way to have another one and not bore people. Possible bump the number of people up. Take out the time limit thing and make it for a lesser title. Like the US or IC.

 

[C4]

I didn't enjoy it, it was irritating and confusing most of the times.

Having a "temporary" Champion just doesn't seem so right. The match was good and they could have utilised it in a much better manner but the setting wasn't good this time around.

I won't mind seeing the match again in the future but please, have some sense put into the whole situation!

 

[Enigma22]

I didn't catch it myself. but from what I've heard people complaining about it, the only way to have another one and not bore people. Possible bump the number of people up. Take out the time limit thing and make it for a lesser title. Like the US or IC.

how would they take out the time limit?

 

[humankiller99]

caught the sd scramble and it was just choatic. hard to follow the action. i doubt wwe will have it again

 

[Kaptain KnicKy]

I didnt see the matches, but I think some changes could be made...

none of this "5 minutes then a new competitor" shit. all five men start, straight up!

make the matches longer - 20mins isn't bad, cause it suits the definition of a scramble, but I think even 10 more mins would make it tonnes better.

i think they could pull this off again, however they may hold off on it for some time, possibly make it a once of a year thing like the rumble etec.


One random thought would be a cross brand/tri brand battle thing too. i dont know how that would work, or if it would, but something similar to the battle of the brands at survivor series.

 

[seX-Power]

Take away the 'each superstar enters 5 mins later' shit... and possibly bump up the number of contenders to 6.

Keep the matches at 20min imo, because a lot of stars can't last that long, if it was like that, the Raw and ECW Scrambles would have failed.

 

[Wild Rover]

They weren't bad matches, reasonably interesting if nothing else, seeing as it was a first. Two problems:

1) Don't be calling Brian Kendrick a former WWE Champion, or Jeff Hardy a 2 time former Champion, when it's all over. The match should be bell to bell and the only official title status should come once the 20 minutes is up. (the whole thing just made a mockery of Champion status)

2) The Champ should come in last. The whole thing is inherently flawed but if they want to go ahead with it for the sake of something new atleast give the Champion a deserved advantage to balance out the blatant disadvantage the match creates. The commentators wouldn't shut up about there being high percentage possibility of the Champ losing (80% or something) - which begs the question, why the hell do the company want to screw their Champion out of the title so carelessly? A match like this (stupid as it already is) should have some sort of stipulation to respect the Champ and not make a fool of him. (it's still a total clusterfuck of logic even with those ideas)

 

[Ballin]

It's okay if its booked good. Although, they should put more highflyers in it so the crowd doesent get so bored out.

I dont see them doing it in the future as I think it's a one-time thing unless they do it at next year's Unforgiven.

 

[Kaptain KnicKy]

I really don't see the big deal in the whole 'temporary champion' thing they do in it. IT doesn't go down in the record books, it's like it never happened.

It's okay if its booked good. Although, they should put more highflyers in it so the crowd doesent get so bored out.

How many high flyers are there in WWE? How many could be put into a title match (US/IC/WWE/WHC) that could really draw numbers, for the special match? I think it's kind of pointless, when they have the guys already for atleast one, all big names.

 

[Airfixx]

They were fun matches, but they operate round the whole premise of the defending champ being able to score a pin in 5 mins (or not) and only really serve as a no strings way to change the title.


Add another 10 mins after the last man (15 rather than 5, maths fans!) and maybe they'd be a decent proposition for a mid-card title match or a contenders match, but when you consider most ME-ers are shown to be in good enough physical condition to be able to hold their own in the likes of a 20min+ 4-way ellimination match then the logic of the scrambles are screwed....




Must admit though, just for fun, I'd like to see how a tag-team scramble pans out... Prob need two refs, but I like the idea of all the double-team charnage... (I guess it'd pan out a bit like the 3 way table matches back in the late 90's but with different stiplations).

 

[J]

how would they take out the time limit?

Man I really gotta reread my stuff before I post. What I meant was to take out the 5 minute superstar thing.

 

[1chiban]

They were clumsy to say the least. I didn't like the staggered entry part - like the Elimination Chamber with one less person and no cage. Makes no sense. Having them all in the ring at once, with pins count anywhere rules would have been much better. Too many title changes as well imo.

 

[monkeystyle]

I watched them all and to be quite honest, I rather enjoyed them. Of course there is always kinks and they can be very easily ironed out.

none of this "5 minutes then a new competitor" shit. all five men start, straight up!

This is the first thing that needs to be fixed.

make the matches longer - 20mins isn't bad, cause it suits the definition of a scramble, but I think even 10 more mins would make it tonnes better.

I think thirty minutes would be better if they kept the current format with the staggered entrances. If they all start at once twenty is enough.

i think they could pull this off again, however they may hold off on it for some time, possibly make it a once of a year thing like the rumble etec.

Not a bad idea. I like it better than Money in the Bank that is for damned sure.

Take away the 'each superstar enters 5 mins later' shit... and possibly bump up the number of contenders to 6.

Five is better as odd numbers tend to be more exciting than even ones in wrestling matches.

1) Don't be calling Brian Kendrick a former WWE Champion, or Jeff Hardy a 2 time former Champion, when it's all over. The match should be bell to bell and the only official title status should come once the 20 minutes is up. (the whole thing just made a mockery of Champion status)

They aren't champions and are not recognized as such, only the winner. That was made very clear from the start.

 

[1chiban]

If this will be made into a yearly-match or something then only one per show, 3 was overkill imo