King of the Ring or Money in the Bank?
 

I personally think KOTR works much better than that stupid ass money in the bank gimmick where they carry around that fucking brief case for eternity.

It just feels gimmicky to me. What do you guys think?

Tournaments are more interesting.

KOTR if held over the course of 1 month.

I prefer King of the Ring. When Bret Hart won he faced different types of wrestlers and had good matches with all of them. King of the Ring is a great way to show fans what a guy can do in the ring, and that he can go toe to toe with anyone.

MITB is great, but it seems like a lazy way to give someone a world title. It worked well with Edge's character, but I would have preferred if CM Punk got his first world title from an actual feud against Batista or HHH. His second MITB win was awesome and set up a great heel turn. It's still super interesting seeing someone cash it in after months of anticipation though.

King of the Ring.

Tournaments are the way champions are determined in real sports. It certainly makes a guy look better if he beats X amount of guys in one-on-one matches instead of being the last guy to not fall off of a ladder.

Like everybody else, I gotta go with KOTR. Tournaments are really the way to see who is the big dog. And KOTR have been the way to solidify some people in the business as legends, for example "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, Bret Hart, Randy Savage, and so on and so forth.

KOTR for sure. MITB is a cool spotfest but it follows the ever soooo boring formula of, two guys in, SPOT!,two guys out,two guys in, SPOT!,two guys out...in every match. I liked it much better when only 6 stars were in it. They stayed busier and they didnt have to oversell a simple kick for five minutes.

And being "King" isn't gimmicky. Jus' Sayin'

TBF, I like KotR (as long as the winner doesn't get a King gimmick afterwards). I think a month long qualification period leading to a one night tournament with 8 guys on PPV is a must. Winning 3 matches in one night is far more impressive than being the guy to grab a briefcase after all the other guys have been wiped out by spot #37 in a MitB match.

However, the "anywhere, any time" aspect of the briefcase is pretty cool.

Guess you could just give that stip to the KotR winner.

Don't forget Triple H and Kurt Angle. You might be right about the Savage thing, but I thought that he had already been established up to that point, because I thought he won that tournament after his title reign. I could be wrong though, unless they considered the tournament at Wrestlemania 4 a KOTR tournament as well as a title tournament.

KOTR, hands down. It boils more down to impressive wrestling against a variety of opponents, instead of a one match spot fest.

You might right with that one too, sir. But still, you get my drift.

Who has won KOTR and not achieved that much success...Only 2 I can think of are Mabel and 'The One Mr. Bad Ass Cute Gunn Outlaw" "Billy" Kip James.

No they're not.

Save MITB for wrestlemania, bring back KOTR, over 2-3 weeks.

I agree with this but it wont happen.

Ladder match one night tournament with the winner getting a briefcase that he can cash any for any title over the next 12 months.

William Regal too. But that's only because he got himself suspended I believe. So it's not like they didn't have the intention to push him.

King of the bank, ladder match tournament. And there has to be a crown in the case :shifty:

I like both, truthfully. I really miss the King of the Ring, and seeing the graphic in Regal's entrance just makes me miss it more.

I don't see why they don't go back to the weeks of qualifiers leading up to the quarter-finals, semis and finals on PPV. Especially with all of the great talent they have these days. Imagine knowing that Daniel Bryan, The Miz, John Morrison, William Regal, Jack Swagger, Dolph Ziggler, Kofi Kingston & Kaval were confirmed for the tournament at the PPV?

Money in the bank is a more fun match to watch but the outcome is that one random person got the brief case. King of the ring means more matches and makes the winner look stronger because they went through so many people.

Looks like we're running out of ideas for threads...

http://www.tpww.net/forums/showthread.php?t=105833

KOTR was great, and the last time it was booked, the winner looked like a fucking can't miss...until he had to piss!

I'm a poet, and I didn't know it

King of the Ring but if it has a dedicated PPV. I don't mind qualifying matches on Raw and Smackdown but have like 3 matches on a PPV to win it all.

This. The weeks of build would allow guys on the roster who would otherwise be lost get a chance for some tv time. It also helps give a PPV some hype and the tournament, with the prize being a title shot on either Raw or SmackDown!, woud pretty much book itself.

It's the easiest way for creative to get a guy on the brink over or to help establish a new guy on his way to the top. They don't need any storylines. Just take 8 to 12 guys, pit them randomly in 1 on 1 match ups, figure out who you want to push, and book them accordingly.

Every single cash-in other than Rob Van Dam's has been esentially the same. I liked that The Miz had a match with Randy Orton rather than just being able to pin him after one move.

Regardless, they need to do something to freshen up the concept. I want to see this...

Wrestler A wins Money In The Bank at WrestleMania.
Wrestler B wins Money In The Bank at Money In The Bank.
Wrestler B cashes in Money In The Bank and wins.
Immediately, Wrestler A cashes theirs in against Wrestler B and wins.

It would’ve been the best way for Miz to cash in. Have him do it, and then have Jack Swagger kill him.

Ken Shamrock and William Regal

Yeah...because wearing a crown and a cape is NOT "gimmicky" AT ALL.

Money In the bank > King of the Ring.

The exicitement that anytime somebody can cash in and win the title is unmatched in sports entertainment. Every time the champion is beat up pretty bad everybody wonders is this the time that somebody will cash in?

I'm sure a lot of people thought that the Miz would have cashed in after Sheamus/Orton at Summerslam. Making it last that long only made it all the more sweeter when Miz won the WWE Championship. Good thing he waited too because I didn't want him cashing in on a fellow heel. That would have sort of made him a face because Sheamus was more hated than him at the time.

I guess King of the Ring will now be done in two year intervals since that is the precedent set by 2006-2008-2010. I'd like to see how Sheamus does as the King before making too much judgments on how he uses his new found powers. They should have some sort of authority being a King. They only have used it as a prop or just a quick way to push somebody. The King should be a symbol of authority equal to or even above the powers of the General Manager. As long as they just made it just about wearing a crown and cape then I will choose the Money in the bank over King of the Ring.

This is a double sided question.

I like the concept of KOTR more than I like the concept of MITB. As has been said, the KOTR winner looks that much more legit because he's gone through 4+ other people over the course of a couple weeks to get to the top, and it's also the traditional way sports competitions are played out. MITB is usually an exciting match, but it really is nothing more than a series of overbooked spotfests, and though the first two were incredible to watch, the others have been pretty much the same. The KOTR looks more legit than the MITB winner - its almost like the difference between a successful poker player and someone who hit the lottery: one guy worked hard and was smart and earned his shit, the other guy just happened to get lucky.

Now, on the other hand, I really like the MITB briefcase and I think it's been one of the best ideas the WWE has come out with in a very long time. Every single time the briefcase gets cashed in, a new star is born and an important moment is made. It really is the best way the WWE has given a speed-shot to an up and comer in a very long time - it's exciting, suspenseful and it adds intrigue to every show that the contract could be cashed in on. The KOTR winner has been given World Title matches in the past, but not in the same scenario as MITB.

So, as has been said before, I think the KOTR tournament should be brought back each year (and given its own PPV --- I hear they're getting rid of HIAC PPV...) and the KOTR winner gets the MITB briefcase. The best of both worlds.

MITB is a great gimmick. It's also elevated more stars in the past decade, but that's booking.

The novelty of carrying the case around doesn't make MITB a lame gimmick either. I can see how one could dislike that, but you can still have MITB operate the way it does without the case. They can grab it when they win, and bring it out when they cash in.
It's not a requirement that they carry it around. That's just a reminder for the fans, because WWE assumes their fanbase doesn't watch regularly/remember shit. And for the most part they're probably right.

I actually think it would be better if they didn't carry the case around all the time, but I still love the gimmick.

I love that MITB has been "money" so far, with an 8/8 ratio. But I think someone should eventually lose.
I'm not sure if that will make that person look awful, but you have to plant the seed for some doubt. Otherwise it's as if the wrestler is just winning the world title when they win the case initially.
Although I suppose the longer the streak of successful cash-ins goes on, the more doubt may be involved with each.

They probably don't even put this much thought into it. The plan is probably just to have everyone who wins the case succeed until the gimmick is no longer viable.

That only works if the MITB match for B occurs less than a year after A wins the MITB.

That's just title changes for the sake of title changes though. Unless it served some specific story purpose it just screams shittiness

I think eventually a MITB winner will hold onto the case and also win the Rumble. There are tons of possibilities from there

KOTR.

I seem to remember back in the day the King would actually put the "title" on the line. Is this true, or some bullshit made up memory from my childhood?

Yeah, in the 80s it was defended, and it did change hands a few times.

Lawler officially became the King of the WWF when he beat Bret Hart at Summerslam 1993.

I love MITB, but I'd prefer one a year. What I'd love to see is have someone not have the case with them one week when they cash it in on a vulnerable champ. It would also be great if someone cashed it in, won, fans erupted with a huge pop, only to have the case empty. Would be cool if there was an actual feud and the MITB holder was a face and cashed it in at a ppv in a regular match, and not at the end.