Do you think some sort of "standings" system would benefit or hurt WWE?

[Kane Knight]

I mean, one that actually has a bearing on things like who's up for a title shot, stuff like that.

The one thing I think would really hurt about it is the lack of star power on each show. Even Raw, while usually the most loaded show, tends to not have a fully developed roster.

Ah, I'd post more, but I'm getting bored. Discuss.

[Mercury Bullet]

I think a rankings system that actually meant something would be great. 98% of matches seem totally meaningless, but a rankings would make most matches at least have some sense of importance to them.

[El Fangel]

I think a rankings system that actually meant something would be great. 98% of matches seem totally meaningless, but a rankings would make most matches at least have some sense of importance to them.

[The Optimist]

I've thought of this before, one of the by products that I would hope would come out of it would be announcers actually acting like wrestling is a sport and recognizing wins and losses and how hot and cold each wrestler is at the time. If for nothing than to be more sincere.

But, to be beneficial it would probably have to be more realistic and reasonable than the WWE is usually accustomed to. When you're actually looking at rankings Umaga-esque squashings of nameless jobbers is even more blatant than usual. And as Mercury Bullet was implying, each match would actually mean something, so all the strange circumstances like wrestlers losing then immediately getting title shots would be much more open.

But, hopefully, it would help WWE bookers get their shit together as a reaction.

[Mercury Bullet]

You know, even if you only ranked like a "Top 10" or 15, or something, a match between two unranked opponents could have "huge implications" for the winner and the potential to break into the standings. It takes even the most worthless of matches and at least puts something behind them.

[.44 Magdalene]

1. John Cena
2. Dave Batista
3. John Cena
4. John Cena
5. John Cena
6. John Cena
7. John Cena
8. John Cena
9. John Cena
10. Etc.

[Dave Youell]

Didn't ROH have a top 5 ranking system for a while?

How would it work? Different ranks for different titles?

And if you beat someone, do you take their spot? Or do you just gain a few points. Plus if your the number 1 guy and you lose your match against the title holder, are you bottom of the pile again?

I'm interested in seeing what people would think is the best way to run this?

[NeanderCarl]

Don't they have one anyway? The Power 25?

And it gets completely ignored on TV, and changes entirely week to week to suit the mood of the bookers. So, that's about as seriously as they take this kind of thing.

[.44 Magdalene]

See, I put John Cena in 9th, so he can overcome the odds

[Kane Knight]

Don't they have one anyway? The Power 25?

And it gets completely ignored on TV, and changes entirely week to week to suit the mood of the bookers. So, that's about as seriously as they take this kind of thing.

I thought the Power 25 ended a while ago?

Anyway, Power 25 was never intended as an actual ranking system, and that's the difference. It'd be great if they DID treat it as a ranking system, but it was more like an "extra" for the internet.

[NeanderCarl]

Apparently it's still going.... http://www.wwe.com/inside/power25/

:lol: @ Hornswoggle being ranked above Jericho.

[Kane Knight]

Apparently it's still going.... http://www.wwe.com/inside/power25/

:lol: @ Hornswoggle being ranked above Jericho.

Fuck that! He's better ranked than the ECW Champion! :rofl:

[NeanderCarl]

:rofl:

And how the fuck has Ric Flair slipped down the list? He hasn't lost a match in like six months.

[BigDaddyCool]

I've suggested this before.

[BigDaddyCool]

Apparently it's still going.... http://www.wwe.com/inside/power25/

:lol: @ Hornswoggle being ranked above Jericho.

Well he should be (this isn't Jericho bashing btw). Jericho has only beaten Santino since his return. Swog on the other hand is winning matches left and right. Pretty simple Swog > Jericho. It is a shame because Jericho should be up there. At least Jericho is on the power 25.

[BigDaddyCool]

Also, a standing or ranking system in a sports entertainment based wrestling promotion would be pointless anyhow. In a more match based promotion it would work, but not in WWE or TNA. WHY?

1) Gimmicked up clusterfucks detrimine #1 conteder matchs on a regular basis. Until Supercena came along, the Royal Rumbe, a match that has no bearing on how well a wrestler would do in a singles match gives you a title shot at the biggest ppv of the year. Being able to toss 29 people out of a ring does not mean you can get a pin or a submission in a title match. Also, they have MITB's, an 2 elimination chambers and that is just WWE. I won't even get started on TNA's crap.

2) Win loss records are meaningless until they say otherwise. I can't recall the last time Umaga actaully beat anyone, but he is always in upper-midcard matches or higher.

3) It is all based on who hates who, not really who wants to be champion.

[Kane Knight]

Well, standings don't have to be the sum total. Of course, it'd be better the more attention was paid, but it doesn't have to be. Even #1 contendership is subjective. Besides, I'm sure they could find a way to keep Batista in the title scene.

[Mr. JL]

I think some sort of ranking system could work if there was only ONE roster...

but I think with 3 different rosters that it would just get confusing.

[The Lone Wolf]

While a ranking system would make the matches have more sense behind them it would make the matches more predictable than they already are and i think it would take away more of the surprising moments.