Annoying feud advancement

[Anybody Thrilla]

One thing that's been happening a lot in the past few years is the use of the tactic where someone gets a non-title match against a champion, wins the match, and becomes the number one contender. The most recent example of this was Monday night with Mark Henry beating The Miz.

Now I don't know about you guys, but I think that once a guy is the champion, he shouldn't EVER be beat in singles competition unless he is losing the belt. If they wanted to feud Mark Henry with The Miz, why not have Henry face somebody like Cody Rhodes or Ted DiBiase in a number one contender's match for the US title and keep Miz and Henry apart until their actual title match?

I see what they're trying to accomplish. People are supposed to believe that Henry will win the US strap in an EVENTUAL title match because he did, in fact, beat the champion...but if he beat the champion, shouldn't be be the fucking champion already? Back in the day, the only non-title matches were against jobbers who had no chance in hell. The only reason they were non-title was because the guy obviously didn't deserve a crack at the belt. I would like to see champions defend the title EVERY SINGLE TIME they get in the ring. They'd get WAY more over, I feel.

Anyway, that's my rant. What are your thoughts on this? Are there any other ways of feud advancement that annoy you personally? Discuss them all here!

[DaveBrawl]

I agree with you, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have the champion lose especially when they recycle this story multiple times with the same guy in the same reign. It makes you wonder why the guy is a champion to begin with.

[Impeccable]

I think the problem is more that they are used too frequently nowadays. Once in a while, I think it COULD work for the sake of a storyline.

I'm not sure he he was IC champ at the time, but I remember Scott Hall/Razor losing to 123 Kid and just being absolutely shocked at the time.

[Anybody Thrilla]

He wasn't the champ. That's why they had those silly stipulations like cash and dressing like a baby in the rematches.

It's like the non-title challenger win is their old fallback to kick off a feud. Get creative, you fucks. A champion should be champion for a reason.

[screech]

Totally agree. What's the point of giving him the belt if he is going to job in non-title matches? Shouldn't he (not just Miz, any champion) be winning those to prove why he has the belt in the first place?

[Anybody Thrilla]

Even if the champion doesn't win the match, it shouldn't be clean. The Miz could have gotten himself DQed on purpose to protect his title reign. Henry could have won by count out. Maybe they could bring back a time limit and go to a draw. None of that is rocket science.

[Jordan]

I get annoyed by this as well, because it is very predictable. You know that the challenger will usually win if he is not a jobber. If they want to keep using this method (which does work on occasion) then you have to have more non title matches where in the champion is still victorious, and of course that does happen from time to time but it is rare. It's an obvious way to set up a match or rematch I guess, pretty simple and lame.

It only really works if the guy who beats the champ in a rung or two lower, then it can make the crowd very hot for that week and the rematch. For instance, If Evan Bourne was to somehow get a clean victory over Miz in a non title match, you wouldn't see that coming. But Mark Henry is obviously going to win and get a small feud out of it.

To me the worst is interference. A and B It only really works if the guy who beats the champ in a rung or two lower, then it can make the crowd very hot for that week and the rematch. For instance, If Evan Bourne was to somehow get a clean victory over Miz in a non title match, you wouldn't see that coming. But Mark Henry winning is obvious.


To me the worst is basic interference. A and B are having a match C comes to the ring with no reason and cost's A the match. Now they are in a feud. I find that really lame and basic. It makes me roll my eyes and switch the station.

[Mr. C]

Anybody, I agree with you 100%. Exactly what I was thinking as I was watching that match. It annoys me to no end whenever a champion competes in a non-title match, because it always automatically means he's losing. Take a look at this:

October 5, RAW: The Miz beats Kofi Kingston to win the United States title.
October 19, RAW: The Miz beats Marty Jannetty in a non-title match.
October 26, RAW: Evan Bourne beats The Miz by countout in a non-title match.
November 2, RAW: The Miz beats Evan Bourne to retain the United States title.
November 16, RAW: The Miz beats MVP to retain the United States title.
November 30, RAW: Mark Henry beats The Miz in a non-title match.

Since winning the title, Miz has lost two out of three non-title matches and won two out of two title matches. How's he supposed to ever lose the title if he only defends it half the time he wrestles?

What really bugs me about RAW is that we're supposed to think Veryne Troyer booked the match between Henry and Miz and didn't even notice a belt on Miz. Really? I mean, if I was a guest host and somebody like Miz threatened me, I'd definitely not only book him in a match, but add, "I see that you're a champion. Why don't we put your belt on the line tonight?"

I know Miz has only been champion for almost two months now, but they should've made the match for the title and let Henry win it clean. It adds credibility to the title, doesn't hurt Miz since he can get a rematch if they want to give him the title back, and makes things unpredictable.

[Lock Jaw]

I know exactly what you're saying. If it was just once in awhile, fine. Something special and unique.

But nowadays they do it nine times out of ten. Not only does it make the champ look week, but it makes the results predictable when you hear "non-title match".

[Mr. Pierre]

Yeah, I agree with the fact that Champions shouldn't be losing singles matches to make their opponents believable for a future title match. I think it'd be best to (for example) have Henry defeat another midcarder to earn his way to face The Miz, and at the same time, making the other contender relevant at the same.

It just seems like really lazy booking having Henry go over Miz, when they could at least make it a bit unpredictable and have a few contenders gunning for Miz at the same time instead of one by one by one. This way it makes it seem like getting an opportunity to face the Miz is exclusive and must be earned, rather than just sticking up for Mini-Me.

[XCaliber]

Yeah this is something that grinds my gears since they have been pulling this sort of tactic for years. Remembers leading up to Wrestlemania 9 when Tatanka beat Michaels twice in non-title matches and fell short at the PPV itself. Even back then I saw it coming and I was just a kid so to me this is a way WWE likes to insult our intelligence cuz I 'm sure newer fans have caught on to this trend.

[Dukelorange]

The last champ I remember that was done right was Rock "Cooperate Champion"

[thedamndest]

I would like to see statistics on this. It seems like on Smackdown they have non-title matches where the guy doesn't win all the time. Usually the commentators make it a point of talking about how pinning the champion gets you into the title hunt in the first place.

I'm okay with the mid-card champions taking a fall in a non-title situation once in a while for two reasons. It keeps it unpredictable, ergo, more real. It can also give the guy who gets the fall a good rub. Dolph looked great pinning Morrison and Rey without having to win the title. But like any booking, too much of anything will spoil it.

[GD]

I agree with you ABT. I am a little old fashioned but I would have liked it if Henry would have defeated a random raw superstar in a #1 contender's match and then move on to face the Miz. They need to build it up for a few weeks, have Miz or Henry cost each other a few matches, cut some promos, have Henry destroy someone and finally let them compete in a built up championship match on either Raw or pay per view.

[Swiss Ultimate]

The last champ I remember that was done right was Rock "Cooperate Champion"

I too recall the vast cooperation angle. Good stuff.

[Supreme Olajuwon]

Even if the champion doesn't win the match, it shouldn't be clean. The Miz could have gotten himself DQed on purpose to protect his title reign. Henry could have won by count out. Maybe they could bring back a time limit and go to a draw. None of that is rocket science.

Do this. I dunno why they wouldn't book The Miz as a weasel champion. It fits his character perfectly. He should be cheating left and right.

[Heyman]

One thing that's been happening a lot in the past few years is the use of the tactic where someone gets a non-title match against a champion, wins the match, and becomes the number one contender. The most recent example of this was Monday night with Mark Henry beating The Miz.

Now I don't know about you guys, but I think that once a guy is the champion, he shouldn't EVER be beat in singles competition unless he is losing the belt. If they wanted to feud Mark Henry with The Miz, why not have Henry face somebody like Cody Rhodes or Ted DiBiase in a number one contender's match for the US title and keep Miz and Henry apart until their actual title match?

I see what they're trying to accomplish. People are supposed to believe that Henry will win the US strap in an EVENTUAL title match because he did, in fact, beat the champion...but if he beat the champion, shouldn't be be the fucking champion already? Back in the day, the only non-title matches were against jobbers who had no chance in hell. The only reason they were non-title was because the guy obviously didn't deserve a crack at the belt. I would like to see champions defend the title EVERY SINGLE TIME they get in the ring. They'd get WAY more over, I feel.

Anyway, that's my rant. What are your thoughts on this? Are there any other ways of feud advancement that annoy you personally? Discuss them all here!

Competely agree.

Furthermore, given the fact that it's Mark Henry/The Miz, it's absolutely MORONIC to have Mark Henry (i.e. a guy that has absolutely no potential for stardom whatsoever) to go 'over' The Miz (i.e. arguably the best and most promising talent that the WWE have right now).

It's just really fucking stupid. But hey - this *is* the WWE.

The same bunch of retards that have completely managed to piss away Santino Marella with an ill-advised face turn.

[Swiss Ultimate]

Do this. I dunno why they wouldn't book The Miz as a weasel champion. It fits his character perfectly. He should be cheating left and right.

I hated when they did that with Jericho as the Unified World Champion.

[Heyman]

I hated when they did that with Jericho as the Unified World Champion.

It COMPLETELY and UTTERLY underminded Jericho when they did that. Jericho's whole push was completely retarded.

Before Armageddon 2001, Jericho got absolutely squashed by Austin on RAW. At Armageddon (or whatever the PPV was where Jericho became the 1st undisputed champ), Jericho *barely* beat Austin and Rocky by blatant cheating, and was made to look way inferior.

Jericho's 1st world title reign should have been a 'stepping stone' of sorts. Instead - the title reign ended up sabotaging his career.

[Supreme Olajuwon]

I hated when they did that with Jericho as the Unified World Champion.
That's the world championship though. That's different. Shawn Michaels is who he is today because of his run as a cheating IC champion. Austin had a great run as cheater as both TV champ and US champ. His feuds with Ricky Steamboat were incredible because you just wanted to see that cheating bastard get his comeuppance. The Miz is the perfect fit for this.

[Emperor Smeat]

I think the problem is more that they are used too frequently nowadays. Once in a while, I think it COULD work for the sake of a storyline.

I'm not sure he he was IC champ at the time, but I remember Scott Hall/Razor losing to 123 Kid and just being absolutely shocked at the time.

:yes: , ends up making it very predictable on how the feud is going to progress or end if its occurring almost every time a new feud is done for the title.

[Johnny Vegas]

I think they're just making it seem like Henry can beat the Miz then eventually Henry will give the rub to Miz by Miz beating him when the title is on the line. Like The Miz wasn't that prepared to get into a match with Henry (hence the "sudden" match by the Guest Host), lose that one then when it really counts, Miz retains.

I could be over-anayzing it though.

[Jannettyzilla]

I don't really mind champions losing non-title matches, but I do dislike the part where now Henry's a contender for the US title. If they were trying to get Henry over to face people higher on the card like Jerishow or Legacy, it would make sense to have him go over the lower card champ like Miz. But to get him over in a feud with Miz, it's silly.

[Anybody Thrilla]

Having Henry win that match buries both The Miz AND the US title.