Value of a Championship Title

[billy]

Holland 227, What if the guy that beats Hortwitz 500 times has a bette chance of being in the top teir because he has 500 wins and maybe the guy that beat Hulk hogan once doesn't have thatgreat a track record so then what the guy with 500 wins doesn't get a title shot but the guy that beat Hulk Hogan once does? That I find wrong (it is just me though) Anyone and everyone in the fed should be able to get a title shot if they deserve one. A win is a win and 500 wins that person should get a title shot.

[bigjim]

i say defend your titles alot keeps all 3 champs busy

[Mr. Jimmyface]

The title defenses are inconsequential when compared to who is competing for the belts. The way my feds work, there are three levels of titles:

Primary - This is the singles heavyweight championship. In my fed, the only two wrestlers who get this shot are the two wrestlers facing off who have the best records or rankings. By only putting the best wrestlers in the race, you tend to have better heavyweight champions. Of course, once in a while, you do get a fluky result, but for the most part, it's stays strong.

Secondary - These are my Tag Team, United States and Women's titles. To get a title shot, you have to have the best winning streak going. These belts tend to reward wrestlers on an upswing, and are a great way to get title shot out to younger talent and make these title belts seem more competitive in nature.

Tertiary - These are the Cruiserweight and Hardcore titles. These are only defended when a wrestler's opponent is eligible for that division. No real emphasis is used on these belts, as they are there merely for flavor.

So, while title defenses on a regular basis is a good thing, keep in mind that in addition to frequency of title defenses, make sure you also put some thought into getting the best wrestlers from your roster in a position to get some great matches put together,

[billy]

Everyone does thier fed the way that they want to do it and make themselves great matches, that is what makes us all great promoters in LOW and GWF and every promoter has a great championship that means something to his fed and everyone championship has value in some way or another to them. I have read that alot of defenses of titles means alot to the value of the championship and I have read that the holder of the championshp makes the value of the championship. I ask this then what if you got a awesome wrestler like for example Sting and most of will admit that way back when he was the man. He had stature and poise to be the greatest champion there ever was, but he never had a real long title reign so does thatmean they used just him to boost the value even though he couldn't defend the belt. Look at now Sting beat jarrett to become a Champion again and first time out of the box he drops the belt to Abyss does the TNA title drop in value because of Stings poor regien or does it drop because Sting dropped it to a lesser opponent. If you have aname and he can't keep the title is that dimisnsih the title?

[Mr. Jimmyface]

Well, considering the ups and downs of the title (Rhyno dropping it to Jeff Jarrett one night after defeating 12 men did not help), the title is not really in a position to be badly damaged. And Abyss winning the title did more for Abyss that winning the title meant for Sting.

The best thing a promoter wants to do is to make a strong title and make strong performers. Titles are made strong when they are defended with a degree of regularity, are held by wrestlers who add value to your promotion, and are considered a benchmark for your wrestling career. Performers are made strong when you allow them to compete and exhibit their skills at a high level. When you can do that, than you are ahead of the game. A strong wrestler can help a title look better, and a strong title would make a wrestler look better. Truthfully, Sting does not need to win the title to get over at this point. But when he won it from Ric Flair at Great American Bash in 1990, Ric Flair was a great wrestler who had a lengthy run with the title, and Sting's clean win over him helped lift Sting to a new level.

TNA aside, I'm sure a lot of promoters out here can remember when someone won a title and it made you want to watch the show even more. Anyone out there want to chime in on what you thought a good title run was?

[billy]

Nick Bockwinkle had a good run as AWA champion, and the early defenses of Ric Flair were great before the horsemen joined in were great. Mr.Jimmyface question did Kerry Von Erich when he won thr NWA title make the title better or did it make him better? What about a champion that holds the title numerous times like for instance Jerry lawler the 23 time USWA champion. Did he make the belt or di it make him?

[Talison]

I have a system in my fed that I think works for me.

All my wrestlers are rated by accumulated points. I keep a separate listing for Singles and Tag, and each new combination of two wrestlers gets it's own listing in the tag ranks.

So, in the singles rankings, all active singles wrestlers are listed. They get points based on wins, losses, and draws. But the big points are in the titles. The World Title is worth 10 points, the US 5, and the TV 2.

The World and US Titles must be defended once a month. I run four TV shows a month and one house show card that represents the League on tour. Assume if you see my League in Chicago you are probably seeing the same show as when the tour hits Toronto. But only one is acknowledged in my rankings, and I use the basic rule of "if it doesn't happen on TV, it didn't happen" accept for that one show a month. That is the show that the World and US titles are defended. It's my PPV without calling it such, cause I prefer an early 80s feel to my Legends League.

Now, as my Champions earn their spot, they get some perks. The World Champion is only required to wrestle one televised match a month. The US Champion is required to wrestle 2. They can pick whoever they want to wrestle. Faces fight more often and against stronger competition, heels less often and against jobbers. (When not on TV assume they are out doing press tours and such). When it comes to Title matches a challenger must be ranked within five below the champion or ranked above him to get a title shot. When no clear strong challenger is present, I have a number one contenders match, or series of matches. Rarely does someone get a Title Match based on feuds, so it's more special when two feuding wrestlers are involved in a title match.

The TV Title is all together different. It must be defended on every TV show. Anyone ranked under the Champion can challenge for it. I consciously keep these matches between lower ranked guys. Although the defenses are more often the title is literally worth less (2 points) but a couple of reigns could build a competitor toward a US Title Shot.

Everyone else fights on a match rotation. If your last match was a win, you fight someone who's last match was a win. If your last match was a loss, you fight someone who's last match was a loss. If you haven't fought in the rotation yet, you fight someone who hasn't yet either (where possible). When you loose two matches in a row you are out of the match rotation until there ain't enough people fighters left in the rotation to make a card. Then the rotation is reset. This system obviously builds strong winners while giving everyone equal opportunity at competing.

There are exceptions. Sometime two wrestlers are feuding, they basically only fight each other each match till the feud is over. If a match ends in a DQ or count out, I usually order a mandatory rematch next card.

Currently, as my points are reset at the beginning of the year, Buddy Rogers is the top wrestler in my fed. He was barely active last year, but since joining the active roster and being in the match rotation he has not lost in 6 weeks. No one else can touch him right now, so he'll get a number one contenders match against the next rated guy and the winner gets a title shot. Or I'll decide that he's so far ahead of everyone else he's the clear number one contender.

What all this gobbilty gook means is that the guys that win the most in my fed are rewarded with title shots for the top belts. Champions who are inactive at the very least will have to fight top competition to hold on to the belt. The title itself remains something hard to get to, though Champions have an option to rest on their credibility for a bit. The TV belt is virtually unimportant accept for a small rankings boost. It basically makes you king of the under card.

In my opinion, I think this makes my World Title worth something. I've had a few week champions, but it's almost always big names competing for the big belt. S.D. Jones would need one hell of a streak to get near the big belt.

[blueraider2]

what if a champion is out for 4 cards(a month) ? then what ?

[Talison]

As far as tites in "real" wrestling it just depends.

I don't think John Cena is any less of a sportsman than Ric Flair, nor was Flair less a TV personality than Cena. As long as wrestling is worked, then the match results are there to elicit a responce. Title reigns don't last as long anymore, and I think that has more to do with the target audiance than the wrestlers.

Looking at WWE's top two Champions, I think the WWE Title is worth more than the Smackdown World Title. Why?

Cena wrestles almost every week against strong competition. He puts his belt up on weekly shows and is ussually defending against a top 5 guy. Rarely does he even wrestle someone not in the top 10. And his defences are wars. Wether vs. Triple H or Umaga, Cena has to fight a long hard match to retain.

Batista, on the other hand, is a face who cheated to win the tile. He doesn't wrestle most weeks, instead he is content to stand around pretending he is Joe Cool. When he does wrestle on TV, it's ussually vs. undercard opponents. His defences are either squashes or matches where he gets beat down for 10-20 minutes then hits 2 to 5 moves for the win.

So there is more drama and excitement around Cena's Title than Batista's. Lashly defends against mostly nobodies and is expected to win. His belt is virtually worthless.

Looking at TNA, the top wrestlers in the League are competing for that belt, but the best wrestler there clearly is not the Champion. Condsider that Angle beat Abyss in his TNA Debut. Then at the following PPV Abyss won the Title while Angle ended Joe's unbeaten streak. In my opinion, Angle is clearly the top wrestler at that point. He's already beaten who many consider the best wrestler there, and beaten the new Champion, all in his first two matches.

Of course then you have to remember that: Angle was given Main Event Status as soon as he entered the League, Christien has never been pinned or made to submit in his TNA career, Sting rarely wrestles on TV, when Joe was undefeated he never got a World title shot, and that top guys like AJ and Daniels are staying away from the title. So that leaves the question of who really is on top of TNA foggy.

Bret Hart is my favorite wrestler. I remember thinking when he won his first World Title that he was not a World Championship calibre wrestler. He was a great tag wrestler, and a great IC Champion, and my favorite wrestler, but I'd never seen him excel against anyone above the IC level. By the end of that reign he had won me over. He defended the title like a mad man, he beat everyone in his path, and he went into Maina injured and Yokozuna still had to cheat to win the title. Bret was a main event guy after that title run. The belt elevated him.

But then consider that Andre the Giant held the WWE Title for about 3 minutes, and he was past his prime when he did so. But in his prime he dominated everyone in the Federation. Like Samoa Joe in the current era, he dominated without having title shots. Could Sammartino, Morales, Backlund, or Graham (all great Champions) really be considered the best while Andre stood there with no title shot?

Is the Big Show really as dominanat as they say he is when he can barely hold onto a title? If everyone accepts that Undertaker is the top dog then does it matter that Batista has a shiney gold belt?

Historically some guys have not needed titles to be on top. But were they then bigger than the Champion?

[Talison]

blueraider2 said:

what if a champion is out for 4 cards(a month) ? then what ?

If a Champion gets injured I strip him of the title. If he fails to make his mandatory defense and one TV match a month, I strip him of the title. If he looses two non-title matches in a row, he is only out of the match rotation until his next mandatory match. That is part of his Champion's advantage.

It is the Champion's obligation to defend the title once a month and have one TV Match a month. The match rotation system will not stop him from doing so. If injury or "his choice" does so, then he is not fulfilling his obligations as Champion and he is stripped of the title. By getting a title shot my wrestlers are signing a contract to fulfill certain obligations to the League if they win the title. They don't get to win the title and then take 6 months off. They can't call themselves the best unless they adhere to the guidelines I use to determine who is the best.

[Mr. Jimmyface]

billy said:

Mr.Jimmyface question did Kerry Von Erich when he won thr NWA title make the title better or did it make him better? What about a champion that holds the title numerous times like for instance Jerry lawler the 23 time USWA champion. Did he make the belt or di it make him?

The first answer is obviously that the NWA World Heavyweight Championship made Kerry Von Erich, as he was a young wrestler who came out looking stronger for winning the title. The second answer is that Jerry Lawler made the USWA title, as he was the part owner of the company and set himself as a standard for the company.

And the funny thing? I'm ok with both situations. It is a good thing when your title belt makes someone a better wrestler, and it's a good thing when a wrestler makes a title mean more. So long as you do your best to bring out the best you have in your fed, you will have a great fed!

[billy]

I see the point and thank you to everyone that voiced an opinion. It is intersting to me to see evry diffrent view of things and there many diffrent views that were expressed. Lets just see if I can use it to make my fed the best it can be. THNAK YOU EVERYONE!!!!!

[jawnrah]

I usually have my Heavyweight Champion wrestle at least twice a month once is a non - title match, the second time is a title match I think the only way to add more value to the belt is to make it harder for other wrestlers to win it, with stipulations or champion rules so you don't have a new champion every month. you know how the roll of the dice can be a wrestler with a pin 7 can beat a wrestler with a pin 4, doesn't happen every time but it can happen.

So I use the lower pin rating for my champ and every time a pin is attempted on him the number goes up until it reaches his normal pin rating. and the challenger has to pin the champion 3 times to win the title, it seems to work. And for every 6 months the title is held the number of times the champion has to get pinned to lose the belt goes down by one. after a year he only has to be pinned once to lose it. This way it makes it harder to win the title yet at the same time one champion can only dominate for so long. For me it's not how many times the title is defended it's how many times it's won and lost.

[crimsoncross]

It really depends, I may have the World Belts defended once a month to twice a month... while my lower belts will be defended more often in a month.