I don't like #1 Contender Matches
 

I would rather just have the match and not bill it as a #1 Contender match. Tonight, we all know Jeff Hardy is going to confront Orton because he won the match last night. I'd rather them not of said thier match was for the right to challenge for the title. I would of rather just seen Hardy come out tonight and challenge Orton because he won last night. Gives it more of a unpredictable feeling. Like Orton would do a promo, then Hardy would come through the crowd in street clothes, jump in the ring and challenge Orton.

I hate when in wrestling when things are all set up already before two people even have a conflict.

just my two cents

why? He just beat HHH. And HHH beat Orton in the past for the belt. 2 + 2 = 4. In wrestling, you don't have to say it all. The fans know in thier heads he should be the #1 contender or at least get a shot for beating HHH.

Wow me and LC disagree with something in wrestling. I love #1 contender's matches, because it sets up angles around the championship.

So instead of a title match built around, let's say Orton punting Cena's dad, the program is built around Hardy earning his shot and wanting to be the champ.

to Inno

BUT my whole point is, why does the company need to come out and say "this is a #1 contenders match just so everyone knows" Like I already assumed whomever won the match should of challeneged Orton next. Then you set it up.

Probably, but for mania it's being talked about that Jericho will face HBK again, Wrestlemania 19 rematch baby.

see, that's where you pull the trigger on Hardy and make him more assertive. He's challenging on his own, which I would assume would garner him more fan support because he has a justified claim with his win over HHH

I get what you're saying with obvious big name matches, but the whole motivation for HHH to even fight Hardy was the fact that it was for a title shot.

I think in this instance it worked because it gave them both lots of incentive to win/teased a HHH heel turn. If HHH had won he wouldn't have been guaranteed a title shot, so by making this a #1 contenders match it added that much to it.

I really liked the idea of the #1 contender match last night because it wasn't predictable. In a lot of cases, I do like #1 contender matches, but I really don't like the stipulation when it is so obvious. Like, for instance, a few years back when Y2J was Undisputed Champion. The Rock had to face Booker T and the winner would face Jericho at the Rumble. Like am I really supposed to believe that Booker T and Jericho (2 heels) will headline the PPV?

But, besides the obvious heel vs. face aspect at times, I really think those matches serve a purpose when it comes to logically deciding who gets a title shot.

Storyline wise I agree. But I like to see something that's as important almost as a title match with nothing but a change. Like Money In The Bank. Speaking of whcih... Who's gonna be in that this year?

I disagree. I don't think there are enough number one contender fueds/matches. It gives the honor of getting a title shot and earning it some legitimacy. It's usually between the two hottest faces, or face/heel on the roster too.

I understand LC's point but I do personally like them for reasons already said. It brings credibility to the title and it makes the challenger look worthy. It's nice to know who's in the main-event scene as well, I know we know anyway but most marks do not.

And yeah it makes the feud's have more of a purpose.

Number one contender matches make more sense than someone attacks someone and the match is automatically made. Why did he get the title shot? Because he attacked him? So what? Honestly, at this point, #1 contender matches are more fresh than anything else.

If Jeff Hardy hadn't just won a #1 Contender match, I would never in a million years consider him eligible.

Not that I dislike Hardy, but it'll be like when Rey won the title, total nonsense.

The only thing i dont like about them is when its predictable who will win it, say like if a heel is champ, and then its a face v heel for the no.1 contendership, its pretty obvious the face will win, thats why hhh v jeff was different for me, cause they were both faces so it was unpredictable, so i don't have a problem with it, actually am excited to see jeff go after the belt..

#1 contenders can add drama to a guy wanting a shot (I want you, so I'll go through the next guy in line to get to you), and also, having a #1 contender at all times means that there's an easy way to handle an injury. I mean, let's face it. How many times has a champ been injured in the last few years? If you can drop the title still, great. If not, there's an obvious successor to the throne.

Even better, the #1 contender doesn't have to be the guy who gets the shot at any given point. That way, other people can still get shots. It's always happened in the past. It just makes for a "Right to challenge" deal.

no, I agree it shouldn't be a "I attacked you so I am the #1 contender" thing. Or someone coming out and challenging the champ when they returned after a year (coughY2J).


My thinking is you don't need to have a match billed as a #1 Contenders match. You have your 2nd teer match at the PPV and the winner usually would be the guy that challenges the champ on the next show, but the match is not made or set up anytime before then. It's just an old school mentality of thinking that I have. I personally would of liked Hardy to come out and challenege Orton tonight because he deserves it, rather then it being made already. I think it adds just a little bit more to the character.

But some of you guys are right. Sometimes you need to have it billed.

Many times titles are talked about as props, or tools to a fued or storyline. The number one contendership can also serve the same purpose. It serves the same purpose as a title belt or a briefcase, only it isn't an actual object.

I don't dislike the idea of a #1 Contender, but I get what Loose Cannon is saying. It is very restricting at times. For instance, the build heading into the Royal Rumble loses a lot of interest from me, because you know exactly what's going on. Eventually a challenger needs to be decided on, but I think there needs to be more of a process.

For example, I think a fucking fantastic way to kick off RAW this week, would have been for Jeff Hardy to come out in a suit, and say that he's now a major player. Triple H could then interrupt Jeff, and ask him if he realises that his victory last night was a fluke. Then you have Shawn Michaels come out, and talk about how he defeated Mr. Kennedy, and still knows he can beat Randy Orton with the Sweet Chin Music. Then you have Chris Jericho round things up, telling all the other guys to shut the hell up, and that he actually defeated the WWE Champion the previous night. You then have Regal come out and clean up the mess.

There are times when it's good to have a challenger lined up, and then build a story. Sometimes it is better to have a story lead to a challenge.

Its a McGuffin!

Wait, this isn't the IC Title thread...

:shifty:

Using the logic in this thread I should challenge for a title

I beat a called call Mark Belton (aka 5 star flash)

He beat Doug Williams
Doug Williams beat Eddie
Eddie's beat Orton right?

So that means I'm in the hunt as well, awesome!

That's all well and good, but you're forgetting to take into account that nobody actually used that logic.

I'm still waiting for Cryme Tyme's title match...

No, it's the Val Venis world title one