No need for 2 World Title matches every PPV

Having a World Title match at every PPV is not a necessity and its OK to give the champion a month off every now and then to let other feuds grow and develop. For example, does there really need to be 2 World title matches for the WWE at the February PPV? Granted, Elimination Chamber heavily set up WrestleMania but Jericho could easily have won the World Title at The Royal Rumble although Cena/Batista was done absolutely fine.

In 1998, it was OBVIOUS that the main event was Austin vs. Michaels, and since Michaels had already beaten the best of the best in Bret Hart & The Undertaker, why even bother having a title match in between Rumble & Mania? Granted he didn't have a match in February because of his injury, but even if he wasn't hurt, I would have been fine with Michaels not defending the title. Instead, they used that time to further build Steve Austin by having him win in an 8 man tag against DX. Having to confront DX is a nice roadblock before heading into the bigger match at Wrestlemania. They did something similar in 2003 with Lesnar & Angle. Everybody and their grandmother knew we were getting Angle vs. Lesnar, so why get sidetracked with something else when we can have the two face off in a six man tag in February.

Now I'm not saying it always has to be like that. With wrestling, there isn't much that is set in stone, and nothing is absolute, but that's kind of my point. Why does it have to be set in stone that every month we get a World Title match? I've even heard people go the extra step and say every PPV should feature all the champions (which in WWE's case would be absurd to try and pull off every month). Actually, you could probably get more out of a champion by spacing out his title defenses rather than constantly going from month to month. Now I know people hate his guts, but remember how little Hogan defended the WCW Title in 1997? I thought it actually raised the importance of the title matches because they were more rare, which is probably the way it should be. And by the time Hogan faced Sting at Starrcade, that match was double that. (granted that match didn't deliver, but that's another discussion).

A PPV does not have to be the greatest show of all time every month, but merely the next chapter in whatever story it is they are trying to tell. Using TNA as an example, was it really necessary to have AJ Styles defend the World Title at Destination X this year? I mean The Pope had already earned himself a title shot at Lockdown, so we knew the second Pope earned that shot that it was going to be AJ vs. Pope, so why give us a match where we know damn well AJ's not losing the belt? Instead, why not use Destination X to feature the Pope in a way that would further prepare him for the title match against AJ? That PPV should have been about The Pope's rise, but he wasn't even on the show.

And what about the other divisions? Going back to UFC, Rampage vs. Evans was a battle between two light heavyweights. One of the most anticipated matches in UFC history didn't even involve their heavyweights? Hell if I go back in their history, ALOT of their big main events didn't involve the heavyweights. So if promoted correctly, why can't an Intercontinental Championship match headline a PPV? It did in 1992 (Bret vs. Bulldog anyone?) with amazing results? Why not get that same kind of build & promotion behind the IC Title. Tag Titles? Same thing. OK sure, the tag titles headlined the TLC PPV, but that was only because it was DX involved and not necessarily because of a hot storyline or anything. A better usage of a tag title main event was Fully Loaded 1998 where Austin & Taker (in preparation for their big main event at SummerSlam) had to work together to take on Mankind & Kane for the belts. And what about TNA? With the way they perform, in the right situation, I wouldn't oppose Beer Money Inc closing out a PPV. And what about the X Division? They headlined in 2005 and proved they can deliver, so why not build it back up to that level where you can use an X Title match as a believable closer for the show.

Now WWE is a unique case since they actually have two World Titles, one for Raw & one for Smackdown. Personally, I kind of feel like its silly to have two World Titles since both shows are building towards the same PPV anyway, but its even more pointless to have BOTH of them defended on every single show. That's just overkill, and one match could probably be saved for the next month anyway.

Basically my point is, we all want quality main events on PPV, but those quality main events don't have to be World Title matches. There is definitely room for creative thinking and changing things up every now and then. I'd like to see the WWE title defended every second PPV and the same with the WHC title, they could be defended on alternative PPV's so there would always be one World Title match on the card, it would give World Title feuds time to develop and proper meaning.

I think the issue could be that if the title wasn't defended yet the champ was in a singles match then it'd be a pretty nailed on bet that the other guy would win in order to esculate the feud leading to a real title match.

I agree with most of that except the UFC stuff.

Thing is fighters aren't scripted, the best is the best and Heavyweights are considered quite an average division within UFC. The Light-Heavy division is actually the most competitive/exciting in all of MMA. With WWE they choose who to push and being a middle or welterweight champ is not comparable to being an Intercontinental champ because that is obviously a step below WWE/World champion.

However, UFC do often have headline events (such as the most recent; UFC 115) where a belt is not involved at all. People just want to see Liddell and Franklin fight and people don't mind that a belt is not on the line.

I completely agree one big title fight at a PPV is enough, mainly cos there can be more done with it, more build up to it and it can clearly show what is the big match of the night and not devalue the belt which ends up lower down the card.

Look back to Mania as an example of a PPV not having to have a title match headline. Put a huge amount of history into a match, a decent build up and two wrestlers the fans give a toss about and the title is just an extra to a match, not a necessity.

macclads wrote:

I think the issue could be that if the title wasn't defended yet the champ was in a singles match then it'd be a pretty nailed on bet that the other guy would win in order to esculate the feud leading to a real title match.

I wouldn't use a World Champion in a singles match unless it was for the World Title and I would very seldom if every have a Worlf Champion drop a pinfall unless again it was for the World Title

I do agree that two World Title matches every PPV aren't really necessary but, as has been mentioned, there is still the problem with what to do with the champ who doesn't defend his title. You couldn't just tell Cena, for example, to take the night off. With his drawing power, it would be expected that someone like him would appear in some capacity.

That said, the non-defending Champ doesn't have to wrestle. He could appear in some sort of promo, do guest commentary on a match featuring his next challenger (and maybe interfere in that match) or maybe be a guest referee.

There's definitely potential in the idea and it would certainly freshen things up in the WWE. And I agree that it would make the Titles mean that much more if they aren't defended as often.

i feel that the champions should take it in turns to defend championships apart from in Wrestlmania and Night of Champions as i feel that the title is defended to much like Fatel 4way i feel instead of putting the chamipionship on the line they could have a No1 Contenders match which wold make the championship match intresting.