but this would be like saying every feud should start and end at the same time. Its not like ok CM Punk and John Cena will feud for 2 months; Daniel Bryan and Kane will feud for two months; Sheamus and Del Rio will feud for two months and they will all end at night of Champions so we can do 3 feuds each for every one of them before Wrestlemania.
Feuds should end at WM and no rematch clause
WM doesn't feel special to me anymore. You know why? because I know that the World Title matches are just going to repeat at the next PPV.
WM is supposed to be the Superbowl of WWE the season ender. Doesn't it make sense that all feuds should blow off at Wrestlemania? If the WM title match is only part 1 of a 2 or 3 PPV feud then there is nothing special about that match.
Take Hart/HBK WMXII for example. A great story was told there; Bret Hart as the experienced veteran who wants to preserve his legacy, Shawn Michaels as the young challenger who is fighting to make his boyhood dream come true. Great match, great ending. What happens after WM? Bret takes 6 months off while Shawn becomes the guy and defends his title against the bad guys.
Now ask yourself if that fued would have been nearly as good had Hart come out the next night on Raw and got an automatic rematch 1 month later.
Which brings me to my next problem, the free rematch for the former champion. I don't think I was watching when his stupid rule was implemented but it is simply a crutch for unimaginative writers. 'Don't want to come up with a new feud or a good reason why this feud should continue? Free rematch clause'. It's lazy and it's stupid and should be gotten rid of.
I know there are much bigger problems with WWE nowadays, but this is a little push that can help make WM and the Title seem a little more prestiegious.
WM is supposed to be the Superbowl of WWE the season ender. Doesn't it make sense that all feuds should blow off at Wrestlemania? If the WM title match is only part 1 of a 2 or 3 PPV feud then there is nothing special about that match.
Take Hart/HBK WMXII for example. A great story was told there; Bret Hart as the experienced veteran who wants to preserve his legacy, Shawn Michaels as the young challenger who is fighting to make his boyhood dream come true. Great match, great ending. What happens after WM? Bret takes 6 months off while Shawn becomes the guy and defends his title against the bad guys.
Now ask yourself if that fued would have been nearly as good had Hart come out the next night on Raw and got an automatic rematch 1 month later.
Which brings me to my next problem, the free rematch for the former champion. I don't think I was watching when his stupid rule was implemented but it is simply a crutch for unimaginative writers. 'Don't want to come up with a new feud or a good reason why this feud should continue? Free rematch clause'. It's lazy and it's stupid and should be gotten rid of.
I know there are much bigger problems with WWE nowadays, but this is a little push that can help make WM and the Title seem a little more prestiegious.
1 - 1 of 13 Posts
1 - 1 of 13 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Wrestling Forum
A forum community dedicated to all Wrestling enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about WWE, AEW, Ring of Honor, Impact and all forms of professional and amateur wrestling.
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Top Contributors this Month
View All
SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE
2369 Replies
Chelsea
1257 Replies
Hotdiggity11
789 Replies
Recommended Communities
