[TripleG]

AEW uses this term alot to describe upcoming matches, especially non-title matches, but I am not exactly sure what it means.

I'm not saying this to be snarky. I legit have no idea what an Eliminator Match is.

 

[3venflow]

A non-title match where if the would-be challenger wins, he or she get a title match. There've only been a few successful examples like Eddie/Penta beating the Bucks in an eliminator match to get a shot at the belts.

 

[bdon]

A non-title match where if the would-be challenger wins, he or she get a title match. There've only been a few successful examples like Eddie/Penta beating the Bucks in an eliminator match to get a shot at the belts.

Yep. It is a non-title match that Tony has created a dumb name to make it sound more appealing, but the name makes no goddamn sense.

 

[helgey7212]

Yep. It is a non-title match that Tony has created a dumb name to make it sound more appealing, but the name makes no goddamn sense.

It's called and eliminator match because the challenger is eliminated from the title shot if they lose. It makes perfect sense.

 

[Black Metal]

A match in which you are eliminated.

 

[thatonewwefanguy]

If you beat the champ, you get a title shot

 

[redban]

It's when you face the champ in a non-title match, and if you win, you get another match with the title on the line.

I think the eliminator matches are fine because the results can be less predictable. The champ may be facing someone who won't be winning the title, yet there's a possibility that the person can win the eliminator match yet lose the title match.

 

[bdon]

It's called and eliminator match because the challenger is eliminated from the title shot if they lose. It makes perfect sense.

It’s stupid. Call it what it is, a non-title match. If the challenger wins, it didn’t eliminate shit. Secondly, if he loses, why was he even in a position where one match propels him to a title shot over everyone else?

Shit is dumb. Or as we call it, “Tony Khan Things”.

 

[bdon]

It's when you face the champ in a non-title match, and if you win, you get another match with the title on the line.

I think the eliminator matches are fine because the results can be less predictable. The champ may be facing someone who won't be winning the title, yet there's a possibility that the person can win the eliminator match yet lose the title match.

The concept isn’t foreign, but “Eliminator Match” is a stupid name. As dumb as All-Atlantic Championship that has the Japanese flag on it.

 

[Top bins]

I don't like non title matches. It's just silly whether it's WWE or AEW. Nobody would have a non title match in boxing or MMA. Hence why I think the concept is stupid.

 

[Geeee]

I personally don't like the idea of beating the champion while they still have the belt. Although, I guess in AEW the champ usually wins these eliminator matches

It is kinda funny that Brian Danielson has to go through a gauntlet to get to MJF but Takeshita just gets an eliminator match for doing a run in

 

[bdon]

I personally don't like the idea of beating the champion while they still have the belt. Although, I guess in AEW the champ usually wins these eliminator matches

It is kinda funny that Brian Danielson has to go through a gauntlet to get to MJF but Takeshita just gets an eliminator match for doing a run in

Wins and losses matter, bro.

So does being in your home city. As do run-ins apparently.

 

[Diddy 2024]

It's called and eliminator match because the challenger is eliminated from the title shot if they lose. It makes perfect sense.

Plus, it's to mix in with the rankings. Ideally the person is within the top 5 in rankings. If they lose they're eliminated from the top 5 and drop back down, unable to compete for even a title shot.

I don't like it and it took me a bit to understand. But, I understand what they're going for. A little more commentary explanation would help since it's a relatively new term in pro wrestling.

 

[bdon]

Plus, it's to mix in with the rankings. Ideally the person is within the top 5 in rankings. If they lose they're eliminated from the top 5 and drop back down, unable to compete for even a title shot.

I don't like it and it took me a bit to understand. But, I understand what they're going for. A little more commentary explanation would help since it's a relatively new term in pro wrestling.

But what the fuck has Takeshita done to deserve a Top 5 ranking..?

 

[thatonewwefanguy]

It’s stupid. Call it what it is, a non-title match. If the challenger wins, it didn’t eliminate shit. Secondly, if he loses, why was he even in a position where one match propels him to a title shot over everyone else?

Shit is dumb. Or as we call it, “Tony Khan Things”.

A Championship Contenders Match?

 

[bdon]

A Championship Contenders Match?

A non-title match. Simple as that. Leave the “it could lead to a world title shot” out of it. It doesn’t add any heat, because no one ever believes the Challenger will beat the champ and AEW doesn’t like shocking, unpredictable finishes.

Although this would be the perfect time to do one, we all know they won’t.

 

[Mutant God]

If the challenger wins they get a title shot, if the challenger loses they can't get a title shot as long as the person who beat them is still the champion.

 

[Hotdiggity11]

Beat the champion to challenge the champion. It’s WWE 101 booking except they don’t give schmucks from other companies a chance to challenge for the title.

 

[TheDonald]

An Eliminator match is a match with stipulations and multiple wrestlers in a 20×20 ring playing musical chairs, and the loser gets shot to space and eliminated from earth.
It´s basically like the “go position” of No.1 Contender matches, but you can´t challenge the champ if you lose as long as he´s the champ, which is pretty much a way to write you off from the title picture. They could also just book the former challenger in another feud and save that gobbledygook, but you know.

 

[GeneBlasterV1]

A way to fill time with "good wrestling matches" because the booker is flat out of stories to tell.