Would fewer major title defenses help the WWE?

[What Would Kevin Do?]

What do you think? I started thinking about this when NJPW announced the next challenger for Nagata's IWGP championship. That match isn't happening until 10/8. Mind you his last defense was 7/6. DO you think it would help WWE to build up big title matches like this? Instead of having one every month, have them every other, or every 3rd month even, to make title matchs mean something, have a big fight feel, etc?

I mean, with the Rumble winner getting a title shot, you usually have a bigger fight feel to the Mania match due to the build up, so could they use this idea in general?

Plus, it would help to cover the fact that their aren't many main eventers right now.

Also, while building up title matches, you could have the champs wrestle other opponents, in singles/tag matches, and slowly give other guys some credibility, instead of the generic "Tag match with opponent involved/squash match against guy my opponent sent after me" build up.

I don't know, I think it would work.

[Outsider]

I think your question is 'should fueds be built up more'?

Yes.

Less title matches would be one way of doing this, and it would make being number one contender far more important if it was your only chance for six months to get a shot, meaning you could have fueds for number one contenderships that become meaningful. But at the end of the day, there are many other things that could be done to make fueds more meaningful as well, such as not having the Interncontential title meaning nothing and the Cruiserweight title on a midget and not having Batista challenge for the belt every month.

[Mr. Nerfect]

You're a wise guy, WWKD, and while your idea would work in theory, it would need to be done right. The built-up matches would need to mean something, which would require good writing, and if we had that, we wouldn't be discussing this in the first place, because the WWE wouldn't be completely helpless.

I don't think I could ever be interested in a John Cena title defence, and while your suggestion could work out better than what the WWE currently have in place, I expect them to butcher it, and ruin it. Is there anything they don't ruin?

[Kane Knight]

In American wrestling, it's probably better to keep the number of title defenses frequent.

[IC Champion]

In American wrestling, it's probably better to keep the number of title defenses frequent.
We know it's fake, and that it's not a real sport.

[Super V]

I figured when I saw the starter was WhatWouldKevinDo? that it would be him ripping off a japanese wrestling idea.

[Loose Cannon]

well ths issue is, would fewer PPV events help? Because if we're gonna have ppv's every month, then yes, titles should be defended on those shows. That's what PPV's are for.

In this day and age, they will never cut back on PPV's though. Sadly, having so many PPV's and putting PPV type matches on Raw/Smackdown/ECW anyway just diminishes the "big show" feel that a PPV is suppossed to give off.

[Stickman]

I agree that there should be less. But i see what LC is saying with the title's being on the line every pay per view. But what they could do is build up the IC title for instance as the main event on one of those "filler" ppv's and the heavywight champ could be in a tag match or something.

[Nowhere Man]

The problem with trying to make American wrestling look more "legit" is that everyone already knows that it's not. It's the characters and storylines that sell in the States, or at least did sell at one point.

I'm all for building up longer-lasting feuds, no question. But cutting down on title defenses simply for the sake of making it look more sporty would likely do jack in terms of helping the product.

[FourFifty]

This is why I don't like every PPV being tri-branded.
Less champions at PPVs means more spotlight on the titles. Seriously, when both the WWE and the World Heavyweight titles are on the line one of them is going to be overshadowed by the other one which gets the main event.
Hell, I'd say less PPVs overall. Keep the big four as tri-branded ppvs (Wrestlemania, Royal Rmble, Summer Slam, Survivor Series), give Raw 4 ppvs. 2 SmackDown/ECW ppvs (since ECW tours with SmackDown anyways), 1 SmackDown PPV and 1 ECW PPV.

Yes, with the SmackDown/ECW ppvs and ECW title will get overshadowed, but that can change if ECW can get a bigger roster, a longer time slot, and a bigger fan base (after faries fly out of my ass). Right now ECW just isn't big enough to support their own PPVs.

Less PPVs for any one brand means more time for that brands writers and wrestlers to figure out what to do, how to build someone up, and figure out where the storylines should go. I also think with less PPVs for any one brand the undercard would get more time to shine since the main event scene doesn't have to take over the show every week.

Still don't see eye to eye with my argument? Fine. Let me sum it up for you in one word- Batista.
That man has been chasing the title for how many PPVs in a row now? I wouldn't mind it if I haven't had to see him in the main event of every PPV jobbing if I didn't have tos ee it so often.
Still don't like how I see things? Well then, I've got one rip off and two words for ya- John Cena.
I'm fairly sure more and more casual fans are getting sick of him. He'd be able to milk his gimmick a little bit more if we didn't see him defend the title every month. Yea, as a face he's pushing merchandise, and if he ever goes heel it'll be great, but until then I'd rather see him chase the title for a little while and then have someone do a run in, costing him the title. He fueds with that person.

With less brands at the PPVs you can focus on one brand's title at a time, and let the other brands rest up while they build up their storylines and wrestlers.

[What Would Kevin Do?]

I figured when I saw the starter was WhatWouldKevinDo? that it would be him ripping off a japanese wrestling idea.

Damn right. I can't exactly rip off WWE and TNA, can I? They don't have a good idea between the two of them.

The main problem, which Four Fifty really hit, is look at the main event scene. Over the past year, year and a half, who has fought the the main titles.

Cena,
Edge,
Batista,
Kane,
Khali,
The Undertaker
Umaga
HBK
Orton.
Lashley
RVD
Hell, even if we go back further, who else is there to add? HHH? Kurt Angle? This may seem like a decent amount of names, but in reality, I think the Undertaker had 1 shot and won, Kane had 1 shot, HBK had 1 shot, Lashley had one shot, RVD had 1 shot, and Orton hasn't even had his shot yet. The title seen has been Cena, Umaga, Batista, Khali, and Edge. It's wash rinse and repeat, and it's fucking boring.

And honestly, out of all those matches, how many were actually good?

I dunno, I'd just like SOME variety.Umaga and Cena have fought 80 million fucking times. I don't want to see Batista get ANOTHER shot. It's old, it's played out. Of course, since the sheep keeping buying into it, the WWE will keep doing it, because it's a business, and they're making money. But hey, good for them, their business is making money. As a fan of good wrestling though, I'm not supporting them.

[What Would Kevin Do?]

Oh, add Booker T and Mysterio to that list.

[What Would Kevin Do?]

Looking back on that list, it wouldn't even be bad if they just mixed it up more. But NO, it always involves Cena and Batista.

[IC Champion]

It's not like the WWE doesn't know their product is weak.

[FourFifty]

Looking back on that list, it wouldn't even be bad if they just mixed it up more. But NO, it always involves Cena and Batista.


Still don't see eye to eye with my argument? Fine. Let me sum it up for you in one word- Batista.
(insert filler about dancin' dave here)
Still don't like how I see things? Well then, I've got one rip off and two words for ya- John Cena.
(insert filler about cena here)


And hence why the brand split is a good idea, and why the all the PPVs shouldn't be tri-branded.

[Mooияakeя™]

I think WWE would think it's weak to not have their champ defend at each PPV. Their way of thinking is that it wouldn't sell tickets or buys.

I think maybe they should do something like that. Really build up the guys chasing the belt. Same with IC. Titles should mean something. Not just be passed around for fun.

[Loose Cannon]

but isn't that what Raw is suppossed to accoomplish?

[FourFifty]

The bookers and writers couldn't help but play the game of musical titles on SmackDown. With the SmackDown curse are you really going to keep the title on someone with an injury? WWE has only done that once as far as I know, with the women's title (hence why Trish Stratus held the women's title as long as she did).
As of Raw, Cena has held onto the title for a while, so they're not moving that one too often. One could make the argument that they're not moving it enough, but then we'd bitch about how the title means nothing because it has been passed around like Lita at a kegger.

[IC Champion]

WWE needs SOMA JOE!!!!!

[Pepsi Man]

Honestly, no. If you are even going to try something like this, start by reducing the number of "major titles" to begin with. Title reigns are more "impressive" with more defenses. I do think they should have a title change or two on the weekly shows, or even at a house show, just to give that "anything can happen" feel back to things in general.

[Pepsi Man]

The bookers and writers couldn't help but play the game of musical titles on SmackDown. With the SmackDown curse are you really going to keep the title on someone with an injury? WWE has only done that once as far as I know, with the women's title (hence why Trish Stratus held the women's title as long as she did).
As of Raw, Cena has held onto the title for a while, so they're not moving that one too often. One could make the argument that they're not moving it enough, but then we'd bitch about how the title means nothing because it has been passed around like Lita at a kegger.
Damn. So three new champions every ten minutes?

[mrslackalack]

NWA World Title in its heyday was defended once sometimes twice every night in long lengthy matches and the champs had lengthy title reigns most of the time as well.

[Innovator]

I think #1 contender's matches need to happen on PPVs, make them more important to get.

[Kane Knight]

We know it's fake, and that it's not a real sport.

I'm not even sure why that's relevant. Compare it to a real sport. Most competitive titles are defended every couple of months at best.

The real problem is, the things that make title defenses lackluster now will persist with fewer title defenses. For example, it won't make a bit of difference how frequent the title matches are if Cena's still getting booed. Title matches are cheapened if Batista's always chasing. Any change that would improve the show with fewer title defenses could be done without reducing the number of title defenses.

[Londoner]

I think #1 contender's matches need to happen on PPVs, make them more important to get.

Agreed.

My thoughts on this are:

1) No, more title defenses make the reign more impressive.

2) What needs to happen is the title matches being built with more intensity/attitude which is missing in WWE.

3) The divisions need to be more competitive, and due to the roster split, they haven't been, so we get Batista challenging for the title every month and Cena defending the title every month.

[What Would Kevin Do?]

But, do more defenses make the reign more impressive when it's against the same guy, over and over again. When the same guy fights for the title month in and month out, it's sort of like "Hey, we get the point, he can beat him."

[Mr. Nerfect]

But, do more defenses make the reign more impressive when it's against the same guy, over and over again. When the same guy fights for the title month in and month out, it's sort of like "Hey, we get the point, he can beat him."

No, it doesn't. The quantity of the defences is only impressive if there is variety and quality in said defences. This is an idea foreign to the WWE.

[Kane Knight]

But, do more defenses make the reign more impressive when it's against the same guy, over and over again. When the same guy fights for the title month in and month out, it's sort of like "Hey, we get the point, he can beat him."

But again, the element that's in the wrong here is not the frequency.

You can't rectify this with fewer defenses, because it'll still be the same guys.

You have to reftify it with something else.

You know, not booking like morons, for one....