King Steventon

Providing the match is interesting, very likely. It'd be a breath of fresh air and I'd love to see it. Armageddon 2006 is a poor example because it was a pretty boring fued involving a below average Batista and Kane. If they booked, for example, something along the lines of Cena/Batista vs Orton/Edge to main event a PPV I'd be way more inclined to buy that than most other PPVs they have put out over the last year or so.

__________________

horrorfan_1986

Armageddon 2006 had Batista and Cena vs Finlay and Booker.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Okay, what about No Way Out 2007's main event. The Undertaker and Batista vs Shawn Michaels and John Cena. Fairly big tag match that saw Taker and Michaels first meeting on PPV since the Casket Match. Was that as satisfying as a main event match up as a World Title defense by Batista would of been?

__________________

Tommy Platinum

Despite the star power, I disliked it because of the all-face aspect. I thought it was well booked with Tista giving Taker a spinebuster to add some spice to their Wrestlemania match, but I would much prefer Steve's example as an alternative to a title match. With the all-face tag matches, it just seems like all four guys are in the match for no real reason other than that they're all big stars. There doesn't appear to be any real grudge there, its just like an exhibition match.

A good example is New Year's Revolution 2007. If the tag titles were not on the line and DX vs Rated RKO was the main event, I would prefer that to most title matches. As much as I disliked that DX run, that was a good feud and produced a great match with actual intensity.

__________________

King Steventon

The fact I can't even remember that shows how uninteresting the fued and build up was. Plus Booker and Batista were pretty crap at that point.

The NWO match was done TOTALLY the wrong way and is why no one cares about high profile tag matches in the 'E. It was one of those matches where the actual match was totally unimportant, it was 100% about the angle and who was going to turn on who. If they had booked it as Cena/Batista vs HBK/Undertaker, or even Cena/Undertaker vs Batista/HBK, that would have been fucking great. A prelude and better builder to the Wrestlemania matches and a chance to see how they guys go at it. It would have been a better way to build to Wrestlemania than simply "who will turn on who?".

__________________

E-weezie

I feel that in this era storylines are more important than the belts. For Wrestlemania 25 our to world title fueds were a love triangle and a man trying to get revenge. Take the title out of both storylines and nothing changes (maybe the addition of Cena). Titles just aren't that important in today's WWE, just a nice little bonus for being one of Vince's boys.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

RaiZ-R

It's a very good question, and one I actually find difficult to answer.

I love tournaments. Wrestlemania IV is on of my favourite Wrestlemania's and I loved King Of The Ring when it was going, but I feel I am one of a minority with that opinion. The fact the tournament at WMIV was for the World Title made it even more exciting for me because it felt important (and let me point out that when I watched it for the first time a few years ago I had no clue who was going to win, or the match-ups I was gonna see).

As for the titles realistic drawing power, I'd ask who bought the PPV's that Khali headlined as champion based soley on the fact he was champion, regardless who is was defending against? I personally only watch Triple H's title matches, in the hope that he loses, and don't bother with his non-title matches unless the storyline and his opponent intrigues me.

Another example, more current I guess, is that if Cena and Edge's Last Man Standing match at Backlash wasn't for the title (and neither had a title) I'd still be excited for it, because I personally feel they deliver good to great matches together and I'm a fan of both men.

Basically I think that the World Title(s) enhance a storyline/fued, but don't effect the buyrates if the wrestlers involved aren't already draws. Very much as Curbritual said, why buy Brock vs. Holly over Rock vs. Brock, that's just silly. Even if Brock/Holly is for the title and Rock/Brock isn't, you'd be slightly tapped to choose the one involving Hardcore friggin' Holly.

The tag match instead question is pretty simple... In WWE I'd prefer a title match. Anywhere else then maybe we can talk.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

__________________

Bigpapa42

I really think the key nowadays is making the storyline seem important. Back in the day, that pretty much always revolved around a title. With big rosters now and all that, a major storyline may not involved the title. Now, it takes more than just heavily featuring a storyline to make it interesting and thereby selling the match as the PPV main event - it has to have over workers, be something the fans buy into, etc. So if you make a storyline seem important enough and give the fans a reason to buy in, I think it will sell as a PPV main even when the title isn't involved.

__________________