This is a discussion on Quality or Quantity? within the General Pro Wrestling : Classic & General forums, part of the Wrestling Forums category; Be warned, there is a TNA Knockouts title result in this thread
In the WWE, the IC Title was rarely ...
Welcome to Wrestling Clique Wrestling Forums
Hello and Welcome to WrestlingClique - Wrestling Forums!
We are the premier wrestling forum and your source for wrestling news and rumors, wrestling divas, wrestling gifs, sports discussion, e-feds, writing and more. Wrestling fans participate in active discussion on all the major wrestling leagues and events including WWE, ECW & TNA pay per view events, live wrestling streams, wrestling video games, collectibles, and other wrestling related products and services.
You're currently viewing our site as an unregistered guest which means you are limited to most discussions and features.
Take a few minutes to browse around, and if you like what you see, Register a free account to gain access to :
Richer content, access forums that are not viewable by the public.
Complete access to post topics, respond to polls, communicate privately (PM), take part contests, arcade, photo sharing, networking, groups.
Create your personal profile and bio
Meet and Chat Live with other members who share similar interests
Registration is simple and fast. Won't take you more than a minute and of course it's completely free.
So Join our Community today!
Be warned, there is a TNA Knockouts title result in this thread
In the WWE, the IC Title was rarely defended at all over a span of at least two years. In TNA Awesome Kong went on a streak of defending her Knockouts Woman Title against random "fans" only to lose to and start a rivalry with a fan. Over the month or so Kong defended her title against random people, she looked completely dominant. When Jericho and Jeff Hardy were IC champions they rarely defended the title, but when they did defend it, their match was against people like Umaga.
What type of booking adds more credibility to a title? A short span of pretty much weekly squash matches or a title match every month or so against a top level supersar with no build up?
NOTE: I know in a perfect world we'd probably all have a built up rivalry with a title being defended at least every month, but I'm comparing two styles of title bookings so stick with them.
Kong looked fucking unbeatable which made her loss tonight completely unexpected... I liked the way the Knockout belt has been dealt with so far, which not to correct you or anything but Kong has been champion longer than a month. To completely contradict myself I also loved solid matches once a month for titles like the X-Division and IC without a build up cause hey even then you even amazing surprises *cough* Kofi *cough*. Like you said I know we can`t have insane fueds that build up matches for these lesser belts because god forbid someone take mic time away from a maineventer. To come to my conclusion I have to go with the quick matches every week way of doing things. It keeps the belt in the spotlight, there where times a while back that I didn't even know who the IC or US Champion were because we hardly saw them on tv. It makes the champ look strong and unbeatable. Finally when the champ is finally toppled it gives momentary shock value and even more spotlight for the belt.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
On the one hand, more defences mean more credibility for both the title and champion. But then again, the defences need to mean something. I think on the whole I would say a belt is more credible if it is defended on rare occasions, but the defences have had a lot of build up and mean something, rather than lots of pointless squash matches where the winner is obvious. So between the two...idk...
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It's different with Amazing Kong because she wasn't wrestling legitimate opponents on a weekly basis, they were 'fans', who could kayfably be as talented as me or you. Had she been defending against the likes of Gail Kim or another dominant knockout it might be a different story. So her reign doesn't really add credibility imo.
When it's defended rarely, yes the matches may seem bigger but it doesn't really add crediblity, because it seems the superstars only have to prepare for that one match instead of taking on any challenges that come across there way.
Personally I like a mix of both, similar to Shelton Benjamin's IC reign where he defended the title on some weeks but also had major matches on PPVs against the likes of Christian, Maven, Jericho, etc.
Neither method is great. However, I'd rather have the champion defending it every week even in squash matches. If nothing else, you will build the champion up as unstoppable until you give them a serious challenger. That at least will help the championship some. Giving the title to someone like Chris Jericho or Jeff Hardy, only hurts the title. You can put the title on any big name you want, but unless they defend it, they're only hurting the title.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Neither method is great. However, I'd rather have the champion defending it every week even in squash matches. If nothing else, you will build the champion up as unstoppable until you give them a serious challenger. That at least will help the championship some. Giving the title to someone like Chris Jericho or Jeff Hardy, only hurts the title. You can put the title on any big name you want, but unless they defend it, they're only hurting the title.
Obviously reigns such as Hardy's and Jericho's only hurt the title, but surely the best way to build up a title as a big deal is to have it defended mainly on PPV rather than every week? Sure, there can be title matches on Raw a few times a year, so it is a big deal when it happens, but in general I feel title matches should be saved for PPV to make it seem like more of an important occasion.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Obviously reigns such as Hardy's and Jericho's only hurt the title, but surely the best way to build up a title as a big deal is to have it defended mainly on PPV rather than every week? Sure, there can be title matches on Raw a few times a year, so it is a big deal when it happens, but in general I feel title matches should be saved for PPV to make it seem like more of an important occasion.
That wasn't the question though. He asked what makes for a better reign. A bunch of weekly squash matches or a monthly challenge with a top guy with zero build.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
That wasn't the question though. He asked what makes for a better reign. A bunch of weekly squash matches or a monthly challenge with a top guy with zero build.
I missed the zero build part. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Then the squash matches are better.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
