Tag Team Non-Title Matches

**TerranRich** · 02-07-2007, 11:19 AM

Okay, seriously, what the FUCK is up with the Smackdown Tag Team champions always having like 50 non-title matches before actually defending the titles, all to the same damn team? Kendrick & London did it with MNM, and now they're doing it with Deuce & Domino. What about throwing in a random TITLE MATCH once in a while.

This brings up the question...where is the 30-day compete clause for titles, where after 30 days of not defending it, it's vacated? They should really bring back that rule IMO.

**Londoner** · 02-07-2007, 11:31 AM

Do rules like that matter in a fixed sport? You sound like a mark when you say 'bring that rule back' and think it'll actually make a difference.

**Indifferent Clox** · 02-07-2007, 11:31 AM

Yeah, but I think they do it for two reasons

1) to put other teams over without changing the title's hands

2) To make the title matches special, when they do happen London and Kenderick "step up their game" so to speak, but you know in reality just are booked to win.

I don't believe they've ever gone 30 days without defending them though. I may be wrong.

**Indifferent Clox** · 02-07-2007, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TL

Do rules like that matter in a fixed sport? You sound like a mark when you say 'bring that rule back' and think it'll actually make a difference.

Nah, rules matter in storylines. Think of all the times DQs have effected people. I mean they could find ways of getting by it (i.e. telling the gm they are sick or what not) but rules give the illusion of structure, and it makes it that much more fun when they are broken.

If there were no rules in wrestling there would be no referees and no one to say who won unless it was a deathmatch.

**Londoner** · 02-07-2007, 11:47 AM

^ I mean rules like this though outside of matches, they could just ignore if they wanted.

**Pardeep 619** · 02-07-2007, 11:53 AM

If a wrestler is, or will be, inactive for 30 days then the title is to be vacated. They have followed this rule quite consistently with batista dropping to World Title, and Edge dropping the I.C. Title after Summerslam 2004. However, Chief Morley declaring himself co-holder of the World tag Title after Regal was unable to compete is bending the rules.

I'm pretty certain that Angle and HHH went more than 30 days without defending their WWE and World Titles respectively on TV during 2003 when they were injured, so in theory they should have been stripped of their titles but were not.

**Anybody Thrilla** · 02-07-2007, 12:01 PM

Another thing to consider, earning a tag team title shot is supposed to be somewhat of an honor. If a brand new team just stormed on the scene and got a title shot, it wouldn't be as cool as if they had to 'earn' it. What better way to justify your team's opportunity than beating the actual champs in a non-title match?

**Indifferent Clox** · 02-07-2007, 03:57 PM

I think there should be out of the ring rules. Like we don't even know if it's okay to attack a competitor outside of the ring. If some new enforcer came in and said, that if anyone did that they'd be suspended it would add a new element to this. As for the 30 day thing, if they went on TV and announced it as a new rule it'd make Helms have to drop it or defend it.

**Londoner** · 02-07-2007, 04:00 PM

^ Or they could just book him in title matches without the rule? Its not like Helms has control over when he defends it. WRESTLING ISNT REAL DAMNIT!

**Indifferent Clox** · 02-07-2007, 04:07 PM

I know but you still keep the illusion of reality. It adds to the show.

**Londoner** · 02-07-2007, 04:17 PM

I don't see how it makes a difference tbh.

**Indifferent Clox** · 02-07-2007, 04:23 PM

It just makes it seem more interesting if we know they have to do it. It gives them something to make storylines about.

ex. A heel wins the U.S. title and just fakes sick every week and at the ppv he says his dog died and he can't compete, the GM then says oh well you'll be stripped of the title then.

Ex. 2 A face is IC champ and a heel keeps trying to injure him and set up non title matches so that he won't defend it for a month so that the heel in question gets a shot at the title which he had not normally been allowed to get.

**Londoner** · 02-07-2007, 04:26 PM

I see what you're saying, but it would be better if they just payed more attention to the title then we wouldn't be having this discussion, but the fact is, the WWE doesn't give a shit about it.

**Anybody Thrilla** · 02-07-2007, 04:54 PM

That's not true. If they didn't give a shit about it, they would've just given it to Deuce and Domino right away.

**The Optimist** · 02-07-2007, 05:12 PM

Lol. It's already been said, they do it to put over teams without changing the title bearers, especially since they only want to push one tag team at a time besides the champs. . .ever. Duece & Domino now, Taylor & Regal earlier, what's his face and that one guy before that.

They should just move all the tag teams to one brand, since they obviously only care about SD's belts, but all the teams are on Raw. Sorry for the sloppy vocabulary.

**Mr. Nerfect** · 02-07-2007, 11:06 PM

It's not just the Tag Team Titles, it happens so much in this day and age. Jeff Hardy didn't put his Title on the line against Flair (or did he? I didn't watch), Mickie James had been in so many non-title women's matches, the WWE Championship and World Tag Team Championship are very rarely defended.

Most of Chris Benoit's matches are non-title, and Gregory Helms hasn't faced a cruiserweight in ages. London & Kendrick jobbing consistently to Deuce N' Domino may not be the best strategy to take building them up heading into No Way Out, but they're not the only victims of the WWE's tendency to make Titles mean squat.

**TerranRich** · 02-08-2007, 03:13 PM

Fuck, I remember when Flair had the I/C belt, he NEVER defended it. Like 2 or 3 times in the span of time he had it, and it kind of pissed me off. Why have a belt (or belts) if you're not going to put them on the line often?

And yeah, the rule matters. It might sound markish, but it's all about continuity.

Now, if someone could tell the WWE writers, that would be greeeaaat.

**The Optimist** · 02-08-2007, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indifferent Clox

Yeah, but I think they do it for two reasons

1) to put other teams over without changing the title's hands

2) To make the title matches special

I think on some level they realize that, the trick is that they apparently aren't hitting the balance between the right amount of title defenses and the right amount of non-title exhibitions.

**The One** · 02-08-2007, 11:45 PM

I love your sig TerranRich.

**TerranRich** · 02-09-2007, 12:28 PM

Thanks. Did 'em myself, obv

**St. Jimmy** · 02-09-2007, 04:19 PM

WTF is a Tag Title?

**St. Jimmy** · 02-09-2007, 04:23 PM

Nevermind, Found it.

**Crossrine** · 02-11-2007, 05:52 PM

I think smackdown could have used Gregory Helm's title to make some kind of story line. Him being the longest champ I think is mainly because the writers/bookers were too lazy to make a storyline for it. But ya smackdown is gay sometimes with all of their titles.

**Xero** · 02-11-2007, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crossrine

I think smackdown could have used Gregory Helm's title to make some kind of story line. Him being the longest champ I think is mainly because the writers/bookers were too lazy to make a storyline for it.

Pretty much.

02-07-2007, 11:19 AM	#1
TerranRich Herp a derp, and so on Posts: 8,830	Tag Team Non-Title Matches Okay, seriously, what the FUCK is up with the Smackdown Tag Team champions always having like 50 non-title matches before actually defending the titles, all to the same damn team? Kendrick & London did it with MNM, and now they're doing it with Deuce & Domino. What about throwing in a random TITLE MATCH once in a while. This brings up the question...where is the 30-day compete clause for titles, where after 30 days of not defending it, it's vacated? They should really bring back that rule IMO. Visit:

02-07-2007, 11:31 AM	#2
Londoner One Of A Kind Posts: 22,178	Do rules like that matter in a fixed sport? You sound like a mark when you say 'bring that rule back' and think it'll actually make a difference.

02-07-2007, 11:31 AM	#3
Indifferent Clox emerge Posts: 16,710	Yeah, but I think they do it for two reasons 1) to put other teams over without changing the title's hands 2) To make the title matches special, when they do happen London and Kenderick "step up their game" so to speak, but you know in reality just are booked to win. I don't believe they've ever gone 30 days without defending them though. I may be wrong.

02-07-2007, 11:47 AM	#5
Londoner One Of A Kind Posts: 22,178	^ I mean rules like this though outside of matches, they could just ignore if they wanted.

02-07-2007, 11:53 AM	#6
Pardeep 619 Posts: 2,256	If a wrestler is, or will be, inactive for 30 days then the title is to be vacated. They have followed this rule quite consistently with batista dropping to World Title, and Edge dropping the I.C. Title after Summerslam 2004. However, Chief Morley declaring himself co-holder of the World tag Title after Regal was unable to compete is bending the rules. I'm pretty certain that Angle and HHH went more than 30 days without defending their WWE and World Titles respectively on TV during 2003 when they were injured, so in theory they should have been stripped of their titles but were not.

02-07-2007, 12:01 PM	#7
Anybody Thrilla Cranky Kong Posts: 78,671	Another thing to consider, earning a tag team title shot is supposed to be somewhat of an honor. If a brand new team just stormed on the scene and got a title shot, it wouldn't be as cool as if they had to 'earn' it. What better way to justify your team's opportunity than beating the actual champs in a non-title match?

02-07-2007, 03:57 PM	#8
Indifferent Clox emerge Posts: 16,710	I think there should be out of the ring rules. Like we don't even know if it's okay to attack a competitor outside of the ring. If some new enforcer came in and said, that if anyone did that they'd be suspended it would add a new element to this. As for the 30 day thing, if they went on TV and announced it as a new rule it'd make Helms have to drop it or defend it.

02-07-2007, 04:00 PM	#9
Londoner One Of A Kind Posts: 22,178	^ Or they could just book him in title matches without the rule? Its not like Helms has control over when he defends it. WRESTLING ISNT REAL DAMNIT!

02-07-2007, 04:07 PM	#10
Indifferent Clox emerge Posts: 16,710	I know but you still keep the illusion of reality. It adds to the show.

02-07-2007, 04:17 PM	#11
Londoner One Of A Kind Posts: 22,178	I don't see how it makes a difference tbh.

02-07-2007, 04:23 PM	#12
Indifferent Clox emerge Posts: 16,710	It just makes it seem more interesting if we know they have to do it. It gives them something to make storylines about. ex. A heel wins the U.S. title and just fakes sick every week and at the ppv he says his dog died and he can't compete, the GM then says oh well you'll be stripped of the title then. Ex. 2 A face is IC champ and a heel keeps trying to injure him and set up non title matches so that he won't defend it for a month so that the heel in question gets a shot at the title which he had not normally been allowed to get.

02-07-2007, 04:26 PM	#13
Londoner One Of A Kind Posts: 22,178	I see what you're saying, but it would be better if they just payed more attention to the title then we wouldn't be having this discussion, but the fact is, the WWE doesn't give a shit about it.

02-07-2007, 04:54 PM	#14
Anybody Thrilla Cranky Kong Posts: 78,671	That's not true. If they didn't give a shit about it, they would've just given it to Deuce and Domino right away.

02-07-2007, 05:12 PM	#15
The Optimist Planet Races The Moon Posts: 2,376	Lol. It's already been said, they do it to put over teams without changing the title bearers, especially since they only want to push one tag team at a time besides the champs. . .ever. Duece & Domino now, Taylor & Regal earlier, what's his face and that one guy before that. They should just move all the tag teams to one brand, since they obviously only care about SD's belts, but all the teams are on Raw. Sorry for the sloppy vocabulary.

02-07-2007, 11:06 PM	#16
Mr. Nerfect Posts: 61,544	It's not just the Tag Team Titles, it happens so much in this day and age. Jeff Hardy didn't put his Title on the line against Flair (or did he? I didn't watch), Mickie James had been in so many non-title women's matches, the WWE Championship and World Tag Team Championship are very rarely defended. Most of Chris Benoit's matches are non-title, and Gregory Helms hasn't faced a cruiserweight in ages. London & Kendrick jobbing consistently to Deuce N' Domino may not be the best strategy to take building them up heading into No Way Out, but they're not the only victims of the WWE's tendency to make Titles mean squat.

02-08-2007, 03:13 PM	#17
TerranRich Herp a derp, and so on Posts: 8,830	Fuck, I remember when Flair had the I/C belt, he NEVER defended it. Like 2 or 3 times in the span of time he had it, and it kind of pissed me off. Why have a belt (or belts) if you're not going to put them on the line often? And yeah, the rule matters. It might sound markish, but it's all about continuity. Now, if someone could tell the WWE writers, that would be greeeaaat.

02-08-2007, 11:45 PM	#19
The One Boss Posts: 17,611	I love your sig TerranRich.

02-09-2007, 12:28 PM	#20
TerranRich Herp a derp, and so on Posts: 8,830	Thanks. Did 'em myself, obv

02-09-2007, 04:19 PM	#21
St. Jimmy Last of a Dying Forum Posts: 16,215	WTF is a Tag Title?

02-09-2007, 04:23 PM	#22
St. Jimmy Last of a Dying Forum Posts: 16,215	Nevermind, Found it.

02-11-2007, 05:52 PM	#23
Crossrine Yasser "wheredat" Arabat Posts: 3,381	I think smackdown could have used Gregory Helm's title to make some kind of story line. Him being the longest champ I think is mainly because the writers/bookers were too lazy to make a storyline for it. But ya smackdown is gay sometimes with all of their titles.