|
|
Post by kelvsyc on Apr 26, 2015 23:04:35 GMT -5
I generally get the impression that a titleholder competing in a non-title match (tag champs competing in singles or vice-versa excluded) is a mixed bag, since the titleholder has little to gain and a lot to lose. Now, there's going to be a bit on whether that impression is warranted or not, but somehow this leads me to an interesting idea for a gimmick: suppose that a challenger has been named for the championship, to be held at an unspecified point in time. Once a challenger has been named, the leadup into the championship match (which, say, should last no more than one month) proceeds as follows: - The champion may compete in non-title matches at their own discretion. If the champion loses, the challenger may name one additional stipulation to their upcoming match. The idea is that any additional disadvantages are ultimately "self-inflicted".
- The champion, of course, may choose to not compete until the championship match to guarantee one-on-one match, or that no stipulations would be added. It gives the challenger time to taunt the champion, etc., and for the champion to be "training" in private, etc.
- To even the odds, if the challenger loses in a non-title match in preparation of the title match, the champion can choose to remove one of the challenger's stipulations, add a stipulation of their own, or, under certain unspecified conditions, dismiss the title match entirely.
- Stipulations cannot be added to the match unless via the process above.
- The champion and challenger may not meet in a non-title match leading in to the title match. That is, no "double or nothing" stipulation shenanigans.
The general idea is that matches with stipulations should be rare because the champion should be winning, and if the champion is not competing, then they are "steeling themselves" or somesuch. Even then, stipulations should be small items, not "I'm going to make this a Hell in a Cell match because you lost against a jobber" kind of a deal. Do you think that such a gimmick would raise the profile of a championship, or would it lead to crazy and confusing stipulation hell that's the antithesis of good wrestling booking? |
|
deezy
Misawa
Posts: 2,334 
|
Post by deezy on Apr 27, 2015 0:20:05 GMT -5
Than who wrestles on those 2 weekly shows?
Midcarders who nobody cares about? This isn't the kayfabe era, people won't accept that anymore, damn Monday Night War spoiled us rotten.
|
|
|
|
Post by kelvsyc on Apr 27, 2015 1:40:03 GMT -5
I was thinking more on hybridizing the frequent exposure of wrestlers with making title matches themselves feel more of an event, as in, say, MMA. Still, yes, this would admittedly do so perhaps at the expense of those not involved as the champion, the challenger, or those feuding with either on matters unrelated to the championship.
As for fantasy WWE specifically, I do have to admit that the Network era has too thin of a roster to have more than one title that would abide by something like this, and is too driven by antics away from the ring to make ongoing storylines primarily revolve around MacGuffin possession more akin to times of old, even if the champion and challenger's "technical prowess" are hyped up. Still, would controlling the appearances of the champion and challenger give more exposure to the midcarders no one cares about, thereby making people care about them? Or is it the case that, in the present WWE, that those not immediately involved with a title chase have some inherent "go away heat" to them that years of "static-ness" has made it too difficult to overcome?
|
|
|
|
Post by Christian Small on Apr 27, 2015 3:28:51 GMT -5
I feel that Vince Russo would love this idea and use it to make matches with 5 stipulations on it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 7:55:09 GMT -5
These are a lot of rules to follow.
|
|
|
|
Post by TolerancEJ on Apr 27, 2015 11:33:44 GMT -5
I feel that Vince Russo would love this idea and use it to make matches with 5 stipulations on it. 4 Stipulations On a Pole Match! Each turnbuckle has a post, with an envelope. A competitor retrieves one envelope and that stipulation is in effect. The second envelope is captured and the same process repeats until all 4 stipulations have been put into effect. |
|
|
|
Post by Christian Small on Apr 27, 2015 12:48:34 GMT -5
I feel that Vince Russo would love this idea and use it to make matches with 5 stipulations on it. 4 Stipulations On a Pole Match! Each turnbuckle has a post, with an envelope. A competitor retrieves one envelope and that stipulation is in effect. The second envelope is captured and the same process repeats until all 4 stipulations have been put into effect. Can at least one pole have Judy Bagwell on it? |
|
|
|
Post by TolerancEJ on Apr 27, 2015 12:52:39 GMT -5
4 Stipulations On a Pole Match! Each turnbuckle has a post, with an envelope. A competitor retrieves one envelope and that stipulation is in effect. The second envelope is captured and the same process repeats until all 4 stipulations have been put into effect. Can at least one pole have Judy Bagwell on it? The loser of the match must utilize her managerial services for a year. |
|
deezy
Misawa
Posts: 2,334
|
Post by deezy on Apr 27, 2015 13:55:58 GMT -5
Isn't Judy Bagwell dead?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 14:43:32 GMT -5
If she's not I know a guy that can make it happen. |
|
deezy
Misawa
Posts: 2,334
|
Post by deezy on Apr 27, 2015 16:35:32 GMT -5
Another creepy thing is Bagwell had a wife named Judy.....mother issues much?
|
|
|
|
Post by Christian Small on Apr 28, 2015 3:07:13 GMT -5
Does that mean we can have a double Judy Bagwell on a pole match!
|
|
|
|
Post by rinaldo on Apr 28, 2015 12:42:23 GMT -5
Another creepy thing is Bagwell had a wife named Judy.....mother issues much? Nope... I doubt he asked her name before deciding to fall in love. But yeah, it's kind weird. |
|
