horrorfan_1986

Reading through some 1988 WON's, Metzler mentioned how the build up to Wrestlemania 4 compared to Wrestlemania 3 wasn't as good since the WWE was banking on the drawing power of the title, instead of the match (Keep in mind the finals of WM 4 wasn't known until it actually happened). Metzler then went on to say that world titles in general, aren't draws. Thinking back over the years since then, I would have to disagree with Dave since I cared more about PPV's with a World Title match than without. However, is the World Title a real draw?

Basically, does seeing a major World title match (Let's say the biggest drawing singles match a company can do these days) would make you willing to pay money than the best tag team (Or any other non-title) match a company can put on? If so, how much more power does it hold?

Take for example the original plan for Wrestlemania 8, Hulk Hogan vs Ric Flair. Would a huge match like Hulk Hogan and The Ultimate Warrior vs Ric Flair and Arn Anderson be just as appealing? (For a more modern example, let's say Rock vs Hogan compared to Austin and the Rock vs Hogan and Goldberg).

__________________

King Steventon

No I agree with Meltzer on this, I care more about the match, and whilest on the topic I would actually love to see more big name tag matches headline the "B level" PPVs.

Look at this year's Wrestlemanias. The title programs were a love triangle and Orton/HHH, but I think most people would agree the main appeal of the shows was Undertaker/HBK.

The wrestlers and the matches are the draws, not the titles.

__________________

Bigpapa42

I would agree.

At best, a championship belt can add a bit to a match. But its not what makes the match. It is not what people are paying to see.

That isn't to say a belt is meaningless. It can add to the match. Its one of the pieces than can add to what makes a match interesting and makes for a hot crowd. How much it can possibly add depends on the situation and the belt. I'm of the opinion that the WWE has devalued its belts to the point where they add very little.

__________________

MR. PEACHES

Yes it does. A Ultimate Warrior vs Hulk Hogan main event would get more attention and mean more with the world title on the line than vice versa imo.

Bigpapa42

So it adds to the match. It doesn't make the match. That match-up doesn't go from mundane to massive just based on the title.

__________________

horrorfan_1986

For those of you saying that the title doesn't have drawing powers, how likely are you to buy a PPV where the champion is wrestling in a tag match (Armageddon 2006 springs to mind)?

__________________

Tommy Platinum

Not very, but thats more to do with the actual match than the fact there is no title being defended. The tag match just doesn't seem PPV worthy. Seems like the sort of thing you'd see on RAW in the buildup to the PPV.

Title matches are the biggest draws because they are usually the biggest feuds going on at the time with two big stars. The title adds to the match of course, but as said, it doesn't make the match. The wrestlers involved and the feud they have makes the match, and the title just makes it that little bit bigger. I definitely don't think the belt itself is a big draw.

Also, things are way different nowadays. The belt(s) sure as hell don't draw now compared to say, the 80s. They seem meaningless.

__________________

Bigpapa42

Possibly. It would depend on the context of the match, as Tommy said. Watching AJPW stuff from the 90s has made me realize how damned good a tag match can be, though that is rarely going to apply to contemporary American wrestling. It also depends on the rest of the PPV, as one match is rarely if ever going to get me to order.

You can also look at it from the opposite perspective - would you ever order a PPV just based on the fact that the main event was a world title match? You would obviously know who the champion is, but if you didn't know any more than that? The opponent, the match type, the story, nothing else?

Or even in a historical context - would a world title being contested in a match affect your desire to see it? If someone told you they had a rare Sting-versus-Steamboat match from the early 90s (or whatever), would you even question whether a world title was on the line before watching it?

__________________

curbritual

I think you missed the point Dave was making and you're way off the mark.

First off, why are you stating in brackets "Keep in mind the match wasn't known until it actually happened"? I don't see where to treaded down that issue later in your post at all. I'm not sure what relevancy it holds to really anything you said.

If anything, what you said in brackets only serves to repeat the point that Dave made about WWE banking on the drawing power of the title and giving credibility to what he said up until the point you went into bracket mode.

Secondly, I don't know where you're getting your examples from or what this has to do with tag team matches?

Let me try to put this into perspective with real examples. Would you rather order the PPV where The Rock defends the title against Brock Lesnar, or would you rather order the PPV where Brock Lesnar defends the title against Hardcore Holly?

Generally speaking the title alone isn't what draws the crowd in. There needs to be a match, and in the case of the examples I provided you would be insane to say that if you had to choose one over the other you'd choose to watch Brock vs. Hardcore Holly over Brock vs. The Rock. The title isn't the draw. It's the match.

Of course if you put a title on the line it will add intrigue to whatever the match is, but then we wouldn't be speaking "in general" anymore, would we?


Well, shucks, I hope you posted this on THE BOARD~! because when I finally decide to get resubbed I'm going to love to see what they're doing to you there. What's your username there by the way? Same as here? Or are you afraid of THE BOARD~!?

__________________
This is a throw-down, a showdown. Hell no, I can't slow down.

horrorfan_1986

I put 'Keep in mind the match wasn't known until it actually happened' because the main event of Wrestlemania 4 wasn't known to the fans before hand. The fact that Wrestlemania 4 was such a disappointment to the WWE shows that at the time the world title wasn't enough of a draw. However, knowing the people of this board, I feel as if things have changed.

What's not to get? Take WCW PPV's for example. You typically had two kinds of PPV's of the nWo era. The ones with World Title matches and those without. Based upon posts from various boards over the years, the ones without the title matches were seen as less important.

You're putting title match against title match, that has nothing to do with this topic. The topic is title match against non-title match.

Oh no...not THE BOARD~! I can't handle THE BOARD~! I have nightmares every night about THE BOARD~!

What's THE BOARD~!?

__________________