2011 Pro Wrestling Thread

I kinda wish they'd do it at WM, then have the guy who wins hold on until the MITB PPV or later. It would be awesome to see the WM MITB winner cash in to turn around and lose to the guy who won at the MITB PPV.

 

Almost sounds like the old hardcore title stipulation, where anyone could challenge for it any time, anywhere, 24 hours a day, and they had 10-man free-for-alls in places like hotel rooms.
It's still an idea with potential, though. You could have a feud within a feud, where the MITB winners are stalking each other at the same time they're stalking the champ. You could build some tension over who moves first and when, do they team up to get the belt off a tougher champion and on to a weaker opponent, etc.
The blow-off match could come as a three-way at SummerSlam or one of the other fall PPVs. After we get the first-ever MITB losers -- via DQs, after the MITB guys interfere in each other's matches -- the Raw GM or Teddy Long makes the three-way to settle things once and for all.
I definitely think that could be an interesting twist on the formula they've established for the MITB winners.

 

A very good idea.

Which means the WWE will never do it.

I also feel they should keep a MITB match for Wrestlemania. Otherwise, you're just getting the same singles matches, with a Divas match or an odd tag match here. At least with MITB, it's a different type of match rather than "Beat you 1-2-3 in the middle of the ring" match.

 

Could also be a nice way to turn someone heel quickly. Have a guy like Morrison win MITB and cash in to win, then have another face come out right after the match and cash in to take it from him. If you get the first guy over big with fans, then the second guy would come off as a major ass for stealing his glory.

 

Not quite the same, but they did something similar at Extreme Rules in 2009 when Jeff Hardy won the world title at the end of a PPV, only to have CM Punk run out and cash it in on him, starting a heel turn in the process.

They should go away from the any time, any place MITB cash-in policy because they've overused the "sneak in against a weakened opponent and finish him off" angle, it's not really a good way for a face to win the title and it cheapens the title. I think RVD was the only one to schedule a match for the title (against Cena at One Night Stand), though Kennedy was working that angle where he'd hold it to Wrestlemania. Just have the anonymous Raw GM and Teddy Long announce that you have to give at least one week notice when you're going after the belt.

 

I think for a lot of the winners, the cash-in anytime clause helps their character. Of course, so far most of the winners have been heels. The only guys who were faces at the time, IIRC, were RVD and C.M. Punk.

If you have Morrison win at 'Mania and hold on to it a while, you could have him announce he's going to cash in at the PPV after MITB. Let Daniel Bryan win at MITB, then he comes out to celebrate with Morrison after he wins, clocks Morrison with his MITB case and pins him to win. Instant heel turn for Bryan.

Of course, they have no idea how to use Bryan, so something like this will never happen. But you could use any of several faces for the same storyline, and I think it would work well.

 

I kinda like the "Anytime, anywhere" stipulation of MITB. Otherwise, it's just another stipulation. This way, at least, there's the element of surprise.

Look at Miz's MITB reign. First couple of times, Sheamus was down and Miz comes out. Even though he was also a heel, the crowd was going nuts.

 

I liked that element of it at first, but now it's been done to death. It makes the world/WWE title feel like the Hardcore title when it can switch hands that way. Plus when someone inevitably fails when they cash it in like that, it's going to hurt their stock.

Jack Swagger got a good reaction when he came out to challenge Jericho and a big pop when he won, but that led to nothing.

 

I think that one of the repeated booking mistakes of recent vintage is the way they try to use belts to establish new talent. My first memory of it is Carlito winning the IC title on his first show, and Swagger is a recent example. It tends to make me as a fan want to fight against these guys as being given too much too soon. And then they lose the belts and where do they go?

It's much better to establish this guys with that relic of yesteryear, the strong mid-card feud—or better yet, make them prove them they can actually carry a strong mid-card feud— so that fans are wanting a wrestler to get a belt before he actually does so, and then feels satisfaction when the moment arrives.

 

In theory, you use the secondary belts as stepping stones. In the 80's, the Intercontinental title was a sign of impending greatness for the holder; the temporary prize that sets up for a run at the top of the card later down the line. Given how the main belts have been devalued in the last 10 years, however, there's no chance of this happening. Titles don't really mean that much on their own; at best, they add value to angles, though even then, how much can that mean if they change hands every other month? Factor in fluke wins (Sheamus over Cena, almost all of the MITB winners) and non-ring switches (HHH awarded title, Ziggler wins because Edge used the spear, only to lose it to Edge minutes later), and there's really little they provide these days.

 

Just look at TNA. Three titles holders in three weeks, with no signs of slowing.

 

Remember when Santino Marella came out of the stands and captured the I-C strap?

Please, don't look at TNA. Every time I flip the telly around and stop it on TNA, I regret it.

Piss-poor program. Jeff Jarrett and Eric Bishoff are, literally, everywhere. Pathetic.