"I think there's too many belts, lads" - Tidying up the AEW Men's title scene

[Lorne Malvo]

5 minutes ago, gmoney said:

Do we have really have "bad faith arguments" on here? 

Kenny McBrides old religion thread had loads of bad faith arguments. The faith being Christianity and the bad being Kenny McBride.

[tiger_rick]

3 minutes ago, gmoney said:

I wish we could stop with the whataboutary any time someone criticises another promotion. 

I was defending both promotions for their dependence on titles. Thought that was obvious.

5 minutes ago, gmoney said:

Do we have really have "bad faith arguments" on here? 

No, I wouldn't call anyone on here that. The argument that AEW have too many titles is definitely made on here often though and I don't see anyone saying it about WWE.

[gmoney]

Is any cunt here watching WWE or gives a shit about it is mine. It used to be a massive complaint back in the day. 

EDIT: I'd say WWE's creative problems are much bigger that just "there's too many titles" which is maybe why it doesn't come up any more?

Edited yesterday at 12:18 PM by gmoney

[The King of Old School]

Just now, tiger_rick said:

No, I wouldn't call anyone on here that. The argument that AEW have too many titles is definitely made on here often though and I don't see anyone saying it about WWE.

Often wonder if its because folk forget about the WWE titles sometimes.

Take the Raw tag belts for instance, Breaker and Theory won them on July 6th and haven't defended them on TV since.

Also, since Wrestlemania 40, they have been defended on a "PLE" only once, Wrestlemania 41. Soon to be twice at Crown Jewell on Saturday.

[Lion_of_the_Midlands]

Honestly I don't understand the premise of having matches with a short time limit. The basic premise of pro wrestling in a kayfabe sense is that you get paid more if you win. As a professional you should want to win every match as quickly as possible, you don't get paid for length of the match. If you can win your match in 4 minutes using a lot of the same moves as someone who takes 32 minutes to win then you must be better than that person that took 32 minutes. The problem then arises that the wrestler in the reduced time limit match is usually on lower on the card whereas the people going 30 odd minutes are the main event. In a strictly kayfabe way you are presenting your main eventer as a worse wrestler than the undercard guy. I know you can say that the main event guys opponent is tougher than the undercard guys, but what is he, twice as tough, three times? So 8 or 12 minutes you should he done, why does it take 30+

Having matches with a 10 minute or less time limit devalues the matches on the rest of the card. Any speed title is inherently stupid. Something like a TV title with a 15 minute time limit is fine because the viewer understands that you only have so much TV time each week and 15 minutes is a pretty standard time for a match. 

Any promotion should only have a main or world title, a secondary title and a tag team title, maybe a lighter weight title at a push. If you are a big enough promotion you can have a mens and womens version of each. Outside of that you should book better to make people care instead of relying on the crutch of a title match to get the crowd invested. You should never at any point show another promotions title. You can acknowledge that someone has won titles elsewhere but the pivot should be that they are lesser titles and that the person has come to your promotion to win the most important titles. 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 12:35 PM by Lion_of_the_Midlands
Romeo Zondervan.

[westlondonmist]

I feel you should never have so many titles that you can't even really defend them all on a PPV/special (whatever WWE call them now). Seems like both are stuck with that issue now. So many titles is obviously down to both promotions having to fill loads of TV time, and monthly big events etc and I completely understand why they went down this route but it certainly feels lazy at times. 

 

@Lion_of_the_Midlands I do agree, and often wondered when did main events suddenly become 30-45 minute specials? I don't think they need to be, not all the time anyway. I feel 23-30 became the WWE norm over 20 years ago, and remember Austin and The Rock rarely went above 20, but Okada vs Omega caused the near hour one fall marathon. 

[Infinity Land]

1+2 World Singles

3+4+5 World Tags/Trios

6+7 TBS & TNT

8+9+10 International/Continental/National

Still room on an AEW PPV for a few more  

[LaGoosh]

Bring back the FTW title, I say.

[Infinity Land]

With these occasional World v secondary title match ups. If someone ever wins do they also get the Unified Title? 

[Lion_of_the_Midlands]

1 hour ago, Infinity Land said:

With these occasional World v secondary title match ups. If someone ever wins do they also get the Unified Title? 

No, they give up the secondary title. The Wrestlemania 6 rule. 

[Infinity Land]

8 hours ago, Lion_of_the_Midlands said:

No, they give up the secondary title. The Wrestlemania 6 rule. 

I think it might be a new American Triple Crown situation until it all falls apart by defending individual championships. 

[Merzbow]

Not exactly the same but that just made me think how far Eddie's prominence has fallen.. we had our Triple Crown King for a bit.