So why does Batista get another shot at Undertaker?

[BigDaddyCool]

I know Taker is injured, but why does Batista get a shot at him from a logical stand point? Bats lost cleanly in the very center of the ring at 'Mainia, and through one of the dumbed moves ever got himself and Undertaker knocked out for a 10 count at Backlash. How is he still #1 contender for the title? As much as I hate to say it, Beniot should be #1 contender. He holds the #2 title on Smackdown, that should put him in the Heavywieght title hunt and has had a winning streak as of late. If anything 'Taker should drop the title to Benoit. Benoit can then continue his fued with MVP, and drop the US title to MVP. It would make more sence than 'Taker v Bats again.

[BigDaddyCool]

Also, they could take the time to turn Bats heel with Benoit as champ, and they could fued later down the road. Also, with Mark Henry coming back Benoit v Mark Henry could also be in the cards, instead of the normal superman Bats push. Instead they could make Benoit into a mini-monster facing the regular kind.

[Jeritron]

He lost his title, got a rematch and the rematch was a draw. How would he not get another shot at the title?

[D Mac]

Because he's still pretty popular with the majority.

[BigDaddyCool]

He lost his title, got a rematch and the rematch was a draw. How would he not get another shot at the title?

Because he didn't win...If he won and somehow didn't get the title, I could see another rematch (like by dq or something like that). But a tie means Batista didn't in, there for lost.

[BigDaddyCool]

Because he's still pretty popular with the majority.

So is Benoit.

[Jeritron]

Your reasonings the worst shit I've ever read. How many fueds, especially title fueds, have ended on a draw?
There was a draw, therefore there's another match.

[BigDaddyCool]

My logic is flawless. Anyhow why do you want Bats to be champion again, wouldn't you rather have Benoit?

[Theo Dious]

The real reason is: cause they need to make a switch quick, and to have anyone else show up and take the title from the Undertaker in a barely scheduled match would suck (MITB scenerio excepted).

[BigDaddyCool]

The real reason is: cause they need to make a switch quick, and to have anyone else show up and take the title from the Undertaker in a barely scheduled match would suck (MITB scenerio excepted).

Yeah, I knew that much. I'm looking at this from a mark trying to understand.

[Theo Dious]

The mark answer is pretty much the "well he didn't EXACTLY lose the last man standing match." Even though I agree with you; if you don't win a title match, you lose, even if you tie.

[DAMN iNATOR]

The mark answer is pretty much the "well he didn't EXACTLY lose the last man standing match." Even though I agree with you; if you don't win a title match, you lose, even if you tie.

Wrong. In a draw match, nobody involved either wins OR loses, that's why they call them "draw"'s...:roll:

[BigDaddyCool]

You lost your shot then, fuck.

[Theo Dious]

Wrong. In a draw match, nobody involved either wins OR loses, that's why they call them "draw"'s...:roll:

If you go into a match hoping to win a title, and at the end of it you aren't champion, and the guy who you were facing still is, then you lost, because you failed to win the title.

[Kane Knight]

My logic is flawless. Anyhow why do you want Bats to be champion again, wouldn't you rather have Benoit?

Don't mind him. he has to swear to get his point across. :shifty:

The difference between Bats and Benoit is that Bats is getting some of the largest pops on any show right now.

He's also a WWE project.

He's also the guy Triple H put over. As a Kliq fan, you of all people should be cheering for him.

[Pepsi Man]

Well, it's a lot more logical than Deuce and Domino getting 89709789078902356897234890.2 shots at London and Kendrick and then winning the title, because they're finally able to win one of those matches.

[BigDaddyCool]

shut up pepsi man.

[Theo Dious]

He's also the guy Triple H put over. As a Kliq fan, you of all people should be cheering for him.

As a Kliq fan, I'm pissed that he hasn't done shit for himself or the rub he got from HHH to make him any better than he was two freaking years ago.

[BigDaddyCool]

Don't mind him. he has to swear to get his point across. :shifty:

So, I like to cuss.

The difference between Bats and Benoit is that Bats is getting some of the largest pops on any show right now.

Pops don't mean anything.

He's also a WWE project.

Yeah, then need to cut their losses.

He's also the guy Triple H put over. As a Kliq fan, you of all people should be cheering for him.

Yeah, but he isn't Kliq. Just because I'm Slayer fan doesn't mean I have to like Sum 41 because Kerry King worked with them once.

[Kane Knight]

On the other hand, Sum 41 isn't a Slayer protegé...

Trips is pushing for Bats. This isn't just a "worked with" deal.

[DAMN iNATOR]

If you go into a match hoping to win a title, and at the end of it you aren't champion, and the guy who you were facing still is, then you lost, because you failed to win the title.

...and so then if the guy going in as champion still holds his belt after the match, does that still mean he lost also in a draw, even though he's still champion, or are you gonna go with common sense and say he won the match even though there's technically no winner or loser in a draw match?

[Skippord]

Yeah, but he isn't Kliq. Just because I'm Slayer fan doesn't mean I have to like Sum 41 because Kerry King worked with them once.
Kerry King is a prick.

but I love Slayer

[BigDaddyCool]

...and so then if the guy going in as champion still holds his belt after the match, does that still mean he lost also in a draw, even though he's still champion, or are you gonna go with common sense and say he won the match even though there's technically no winner or loser in a draw match?

Yes.

[DAMN iNATOR]

Gotcha.:cool:

[Inadequacy]

It's just Batista's character: the guy who gets tons of title shots even though he never wins the belt. Just look at his feud with King Booker, even though he lost a bunch of title matches, he just kept getting more until he won. Also, I'm pretty sure Booker never got his rematch, aside from stupid tag team matches.

[BigDaddyCool]

Nevermind, Edge is champion now...btw, spoiler.

[Theo Dious]

...and so then if the guy going in as champion still holds his belt after the match, does that still mean he lost also in a draw, even though he's still champion, or are you gonna go with common sense and say he won the match even though there's technically no winner or loser in a draw match?

Again, he went in with the goal to remain champion. In a draw situation, the champion retains the belt, so he wins. The only way for this situation to be any different would be to institute a rule by which, in the case of a draw in a championship match, the belt would be declared burritotastic... erm, I mean, vacant, until a rematch could be held.

[Mr. Nerfect]

A draw situation doesn't mean the challenger loses. It just means the Champion gets to keep his title on a technicality. Jeritron is right on the money.

Once upon a time, you might have only ever gotten one shot at a title, and regardless of the ruling, if you aren't Champion, you don't get another shot. That's not how the business works anymore. There are four ways a Championship match can go:

1. The Champion wins.
In this scenario, there is no doubt: The Champion is better than the challenger. Unless there is some dire circumstance in which a person in power makes another match for the title, the challenger should go into re-contention.

2. The Championship match ends in a draw.
The Champion does not prove he is better than the challenger. The challenger has a legitimate claim to the title, and can logically request another match, until the Champion proves he is more deserving of holding the title.

3. The Champion loses via countout or disqualification.
In this case, the "Champion's advantage" ties the party to his Championship. The challenger doesn't win the belt, but could still logically make a claim to the title.

4. The Champion loses via pinfall or submission.
When this occurs, a new Champion is crowned.

Now, the only "logic" I see being applied as to why Batista should not get another title shot, is that he didn't win the title. Taking that logic, any Champion could go around with a steel chair, swing it around aimlessly in his matches and get himself disqualified. There would be no consequence, because he is Champion and his opponent is not.

A draw outcome to a match should lead to another match for said title. Hell, it should lead to a rematch even if there isn't a title being contested. If a match ends in a draw, there is doubt as to who should be declared the winner. If wrestling is meant to simulate a sport, it is the industry's purpose to propel itself towards a revealed winner.

The Last Man Standing Match at Judgment Day saw both men unable to stand up and answer the ten count. We don't know who should have won. Some may argue that The Undertaker is Champion, thus he should be given benefit of the doubt, but that is what happened. The Undertaker got to keep the World Heavyweight Championship to his name. It's an extension of the "Champion's advantage."

Why you wouldn't give Batista another shot at the title doesn't make any sense. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't. Batista proved he could beat The Undertaker by forcing him down for a ten count. In perception, it is better than a disqualification or countout win. I mean, being counted down in a Last Man Standing match loses you your title. The only reason Undertaker gets to keep his is because Batista also lost the match. It all cancels out, so a rubber match between the two is perfectly logical.

[Mr. Nerfect]

My logic is flawless. Anyhow why do you want Bats to be champion again, wouldn't you rather have Benoit?

LOL! I love the way that the statement "My logic is flawless," is followed up by a huge leap in assumption. :lol:

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that was on purpose.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Again, he went in with the goal to remain champion. In a draw situation, the champion retains the belt, so he wins. The only way for this situation to be any different would be to institute a rule by which, in the case of a draw in a championship match, the belt would be declared burritotastic... erm, I mean, vacant, until a rematch could be held.

Not quite. I like you as a poster, one of the smarter ones on here, but I think you are looking at the polar ends of the spectrum, and are missing detail in the middle.

Winning and losing have different shades in professional wrestling. Should they? That's irrelevant to this discussion.

I mean, the WWE still considered Umaga undefeated after he lost to Shawn Michaels via disqualification. Samoa Joe lost a three-way match, but because he wasn't pinned, he was still considered undefeated.

Not the best examples, as I disagree with both companies' decisions in those regards, but it goes with the whole "shade" thing. A challenger winning doesn't always mean they get the belt; A Champion losing doesn't always mean they lose the belt.

The grey areas support Batista in this case. If you and BDC didn't disagree with it, I'd have to assume that it would have to be taken as fact. Champion and challenger draw? Of course there is going to be another match. Even if the rulebook technically doesn't qualify a draw as means for a rematch, Theodore Long would logically (we're getting out of the sports and into the entertainment side of booking now) want to see who the better man is. He's a General Manager that likes to please the average fan, do you really think he's going to leave a big question mark to one of his main events?

[Mr. Nerfect]

Well, it's a lot more logical than Deuce and Domino getting 89709789078902356897234890.2 shots at London and Kendrick and then winning the title, because they're finally able to win one of those matches.

I'm not the first guys to defend Deuce & Domino, but the match where they challenged London & Kendrick and actually won the belts makes perfect sense.

I remember counting as they were heading into their inevitable match with the Champions. I believe Deuce & Domino got two falls over London & Kendrick. Now this assuming that falls over a Champion = title shot. Things probably don't need to be done that way, but Deuce & Domino probably could attempt to argue two shots at the WWE Tag Team Championship. I believe they won the belts from London & Kendrick in their second shot.

Now should they have won the WWE Tag Team Championship? That is a completely different matter.

[BigDaddyCool]

LOL! I love the way that the statement "My logic is flawless," is followed up by a huge leap in assumption. :lol:

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that was on purpose.

Everything I do is what I meant to do. :mad:

[Mr. Nerfect]

Everything I do is what I meant to do. :mad:

Then kudos, sir. :lol:

[The Naitch]

because wrestling is fake, you asshole