I miss titles changing hands on weekly episodic television shows
 

Looking back at the WWE title...

If you don't count them taking it off RVD on the July 3, 2006 of RAW (which they probably did cos he was "ECW" and won it in such fashion) and the two vacations of the title and thus needing a new champ...

You have to go back to September 16, 2003 to the title has changed hands on RAW or SD! (back when there was no brand split / belt was on SD!)

I just think this takes away the unpredictability. I think they do it cos of the PPV money, but if the unpredictability is there, people will tune in anyway if the card is good enough cos they will still be none the wiser. So it sorta evens itself out.

Anyway, is it good for the title to change hands on the weekly shows just as much as it is to change hands on PPV's only? Discuss.

Oh BTW, should you so wish for a perusal...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WWE_Champions

the titles don't mean jack shit anymore

Well when the brand split first started out the WWE Championship would change hands every month and the feuds were weaksauce cuz it was defended on both shows.

I remember back in the late 1980's and early 1990's, they occasionally changed hands on national television.

I thought RVD lost the belt after being busted for drugs, but maybe your theory is correct.

This is correct, which is why he never won it again.

I'm pretty sure you're right. From what I remember, it was gonna be RVD vs. Edge vs. Cena at SNME, but instead they pushed the match up to RAW a few weeks earlier and gave the belt to Edge sooner than expected since RVD was gonna serve his suspension.

EDIT: Damn, beat me to it Perf

Having the lower tier titles change hands on non-PPVs shows wouldn't be too much of an issue since last few years WWE has ignored anything lower than a heavyweight or IC/US title as the focus of a PPV.

It would help bring back the feeling of anything could happen from years ago since it keeps people interested in feuds and shows. Similar to how last few years a title changes hands on overseas tours which helps generate some interest by the time they return back to the US.

As long as they don't go overboard like the WWE hardcore title which had a new champion almost every show and became a throw-away title that got no support in terms of PPV build or importance.

But, you gave more information. :y:

Giving us a surprise occasionally helps to bolster the idea that anything can happen. Too often, though, and it's just dumb.

Agreed. And plus, there's not money in having these big moments happen on free TV when you could be getting PPV buys out of them. The reason we've seen less and less given away on free television is that we're willing to pay $45 to see the "good stuff."

Yes, having the air of unpredictability may get some people to tune in more, but overkill, as KK (more succinctly) said, can cost the company money.

Didn't Jericho beat Batista for the title a few years ago on Raw?

Didn't CM Punk cash his MITB contract on Raw?

Didn't Jack Swagger cash in on Smackdown?

For whatever it's worth, the TNA title changed hands on Impact when RVD beat Styles. It hasn't changed since

Randy Orton won the WWE title on Raw last year (granted, after Batista vacated it)

I agree that it would be a good thing and bring back the unpredictability of years past. I can't speak as much for SD because I have a life on Friday nights and don't ever care to watch it, especially since they first made Rey World champion years ago on SD. The problem is that the World title(s) (or title holders) haven't truly been the focus of the weekly shows in a LONG time, unfortunately. Hell, when was the last time a World title match was even booked on Raw? I couldn't tell you when it was or who was in it, which is truly sad IMO.

It's definitely not the norm for TNA.

The whole "vacated it" part is already accounted for in the initial post. I don't remember the circumstances of the other two (I'm not counting Swagga, because I know you're right there), so I can't comment on those.

Intercontinental Champion on 3 different events back to back to back
Edge July 24, 1999 1 Toronto, ON Live event
Jeff Jarrett 25 July 25, 1999 1 Buffalo, NY Fully Loaded
D'Lo BrownJuly 26, 1999 27 Dayton, OH Raw is War

Pay attention he is talking about the WWE title.

Well he should change the name of the thread then.

Juan <script type="text/javascript"> vbmenu_register("postmenu_3162711", true); </script>
is a bit shit

How many times in the year are the world titles even defended on Raw or Smackdown?

Hardly ever....

There was a brand split by that time. The split happenned around March/April 2002 a week or two after WrestleMania. The 2 titles thing started in September 2002 with the World Title being the Raw title and the WWE Title on Smackdown.

The last time I remember them making a huge fucking deal out of anything lower than WWE/WHC/IC/US title-level would have to be wayyyyyyyyyyy back at No Mercy 2002, which crowned new WWE Tag Team Champions. I don't recall if the World Tag Team Championships were awarded or defended (EDIT: OK, did some checking. Christian & Jericho had a successful World Tag Team title defense.) at that event or not, but either way they made a pretty big noise about it since the tag titles were being formally affected by the brand split.

I always figured they waited to defend the title on PPV to try and make the title seem more important. How many times have you heard...

***

CHALLENGER: How about me and you have a title match RIGHT HERE TONIGHT ON RAW?!?!!?!?

CHAMPION: You want a title match with me? YOU'VE GOT IT!

*RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!*

CHAMPION: ....only not tonight.

*BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO*

****

?

Title matches with the implication that the title just may actually change hands are supposed to be draws. Why give them away for free?

In WWE, ratings first, PPV buys second.

It's ass-backwards, but it's the nature of the beast right now. It's really just residual from the Monday Night Wars.

Or if you'd like to consider things from a kayfabe standpoint, the general managers of the shows want to make the pay per views their best shows. They want to build anticipation to title matches, and they want to give the participants more time on TV to 'make it personal'. They wouldn't want to just give title matches away on TV either.

And you should read the fucking post.

For the most part I agree that the world titles should be defended on PPVs rather than regular TV. The best reason to have a title match on TV is a rematch clause. Other than that with the way PPVs are scheduled as soon as one ends they need to start building a program for the next.

I think I had a point tbh when I said that if the unpredictability is there, people will tune in and buy the PPV as will still be none the wiser as to what can happen. "Fuck Randall just won the title on RAW, I was not expecting that. Now wtf they gonna do at the Rumble? Seamus was meant to defend it". - So it sorta evens itself out with the interest being kept.