Wrestling Forum banner

Rankings and Standings in WWE

3507 9
I think it would be a cool idea to have WWE keep track of every wrestler's win-loss total over the course of a year and rank the top 5 wrestlers on each brand similar to NCAA Top 25 in football and basketball. For instance, Miz and Edge would be ranked #1 on their respective brands since they're the champions, Cena/Del Rio #2, Orton/Mysterio #3, etc..., and people can move up or down the rankings depending on their overall win-loss record.

I think this way it makes matches less predictable and more exciting for a potential "upset". Guys like Cena can lose matches just like the top teams in college football or basketball lose every now and then, but still have a top record or ranking throughout the year. It would help get the low/mid-card wrestlers over if they are able to score an "upset" against a big name/top ranked wrestler.

Then have a tournament or playoff to determine the WWE/World Heavyweight Champion at a PPV event. The top ranked wrestler (current WWE/WH Champion) would be the 1 seed and would face the 8 seed, the 2 seed faces the 7 seed, and so on.

I think it would make matches seem more meaningful in the big picture. Every match is fought to improve your standing/ranking in order to compete for the championship, and rivalries would be established naturally instead of feeling forced. It would also allow for more parity in matches instead of having the same people fight each other week in and week out.

What do you think?
  • Like
Reactions: Henry Hill
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
4,888 Posts
Nice idea. I personally would like to see a league tournament play out in the build up to wrestlemania with the two leaders fighting it out at the big event for the money in the bank briefcase. That way the money in the bank winner would have thoroughly earned their spot as opposed to getting lucky in a random eight man ladder match.

You get guys like Morrison, Bryan, Dibiase etc and give them ten minute league matches each week on Raw. We get to see good wrestling and we are given time to root for their ultimate goal of becoming world champion.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
483 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Exactly. WWE is so afraid of letting the top guys look bad that the mid-card guys never get a chance to shine. Is it gonna completely ruin Cena's popularity if he loses to Daniel Bryan or John Morrison, or even loses cleanly (gasp!) to a heel like Punk or Sheamus? Not if standings were implemented. Just like in any professional sport, the best teams don't go undefeated.

If fans believe there's a chance someone like Cena can lose cleanly before the match takes place, it makes it much more interesting, and much more satisfying (if you're a Cena fan) if he DOES win.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,239 Posts
You really don't need a ranking system. WWE just needs to follow four simple rules:

1. A string of continuous loses must have an effect on the character. A heel who continues to lose shouldn't still act like he's a hot shot in the ring. Otherwise, stop acting like some sort of face (Mark Henry) is some sort of major threat if he continues to lose. If you want him to be a threat, then give him some legitimate wins.

2. Do not randomly move guys up and down the card in the span of a couple of weeks. If someone is moving up than give them an accompying storyline and don't ignore their past of mediocrity if it was less than 3 months ago. Do not have guys go from upper midcarders to getting destroyed by main eventers in the span of a few weeks with NO explaination.

3. If a face upsets a more powerful heel, then the face should move up the card in all fairness. If you don't want the face in that part of the card, then have him decisively outclassed by the stronger competition before moving him back down. The face needs something to show for the upset other than a one off victory over a higher superstar.

4. Don't put two main eventers up against each other if neither guy can be made to lose cleanly. Likewise, don't put main event matchups on TV as those matches very likely will not end fairly. The whole point of a clash between main eventers is to see two dominant competitors face an equal of their skill. Really, I don't care if Punk is a heel, if he needs to cheat to beat Cena, then don't go putting them against each other; if CM Punk cheats because he's a heel, then he would cheat and fight dirty against guys he could beat normally just because he could.


Intricate ranking systems are far too complicated for failed Hollywood writers to properly implement. I would however, like to see a general tier system of the roster as long as its confined towards the internet.
 

· Dragon Slayer
Joined
·
6,701 Posts
Yea I noticed that on their website. But what does it really mean? What's the formula for determining the rankings? How is it implemented? It just seems like it serves no purpose.

Kayfabe brother. Kayfabe.

Whoever WWE wants to push moves up the power 25 in some attempt to make them more legitimate. Although it was hilarious to see The Miz at #2 after losing to Jerry Lawler for 3 consecutive weeks.


4. Don't put two main eventers up against each other if neither guy can be made to lose cleanly. Likewise, don't put main event matchups on TV as those matches very likely will not end fairly. The whole point of a clash between main eventers is to see two dominant competitors face an equal of their skill. Really, I don't care if Punk is a heel, if he needs to cheat to beat Cena, then don't go putting them against each other; if CM Punk cheats because he's a heel, then he would cheat and fight dirty against guys he could beat normally just because he could.


So what you're saying is you don't want feuds between main eventers and no storylines? Cheap heel wins are the cornerstone of every feud in the history of wrestling.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
483 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
It shouldn't be about wins and losses to the fans, but it should matter to the wrestlers. Even though we know it's scripted, we should be under the impression that every wrestlers goal is to compete for a championship.

Take Sheamus for instance. He was main event status for a good stretch and now he's a mid-carder feuding with Mark Henry and Daniel Bryan while wearing a cheesy cape and crown. Why? It makes no sense for him to be feuding with these guys and looking like an idiot wearing that costume when he's already proven he belongs in the main event picture.

HOWEVER, if you match him up against those guys with the goal is to get wins to move up in the rankings, then those matches would make sense. He would have a realistic objective in mind that makes sense to the viewers.

I feel as though the WWE is so concerned with building up feuds that they don't allow feuds to happen on their own. Why should Punk care about what Orton did to him two years ago when he could be proving he should compete for the WWE championship? What is Wade Barrett going after Big Show for? What the hell was the point of Tyson Kidd and his bodyguard?

This is why Alberto Del Rio's push has been so successful. Everything he's done has had a clear purpose. He attacks Edge because he wants to weaken him. He attacks Kofi viciously because he ruins his promos and attacked him from behind. Del Rio has superstar written all over him because he's got his priorities in order. I can't say the same for most of the other wrestlers.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,239 Posts
So what you're saying is you don't want feuds between main eventers and no storylines? Cheap heel wins are the cornerstone of every feud in the history of wrestling.
For starters, main eventers shouldn't wrestle each other on TV nearly as much as they do now. The audience and the WWE knows that matches against main eventers can't finish cleanly on TV as they disincentivices fans to buy the PPVs. Storylines can still be carried through mic work and the main eventers can wrestle other guys on TV.

Secondly, the entire point of a guy being a main eventer in kayfabe is that guy being the absolute best of the best. The appeal of matches between main eventers in wrestling being two borderline impossible to beat competitors fighting it out against someome of equal or similar skill to see who is truly the top dog. Someone who is a main eventer shouldn't need to cheat in order to beat another main eventer. Cheap heel wins wouldn't be a problem if the heel cheated for its own sake and didn't cheat because he needed to. Old school heels got this right in cheating against every face they wrestled against, regardless of the face's ability, just to show off how evil they were. Current era heels only cheat as an last resort in a match and such needs to cheat come off more as weakness than a guy being evil.
 
1 - 10 of 10 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.
Top