Do we really need these Dark Title Matches?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by C.M. Shaddix, Aug 28, 2013.

  1. It's very silly really, why does WWE still have titles defended at house shows, pre/post dark matches and at NXT dark matches? Isn't it obvious that WWE won't have a title change at a house show?(besides the tag titles in 2012, but that was because Bourne had to be suspended) All this does it foreshadow who the winner will be, for example, on Raw in 2011, there was are Dark 5-man HIAC match for the WWE title after Raw before the HIAC ppv, and after when the Triple Threat HIAC match was announced? Well there was, and that was totally pointless and showed you who the winner was gonna be. So why does WWE still do these Title matches at house shows and other shit? Thoughts on why?
  2. For little kids who doesnt know that.
  3. Well yeah they're pointless, but I guess the reason is what Rhod just said.
  4. #4 Lockard 23, Aug 29, 2013
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2013
    Kayfabe wise, it makes sense. If you attend house shows and guys/gals are in character wrestling matches, then it makes sense that their titles would be on the line. Even if it isn't televised, champions should still be expected to defend their titles since it's how true champions prove their worthy of holding the gold.
  5. Yeah, in kayfabe it makes sense and it doesn't really bother us because it's not televised, so.
  6. See now since the US Title is in the crapper at the min. I'd say since it always ends up on pre shows for PPV's that that title should actually be defended for real at house shows as its no biggie if it changes hands. Plus if it did they could show it on RAW an SD like they used to with the hardcore title when that was 24/7.
  7. There has been title changes before. Primo and Epico defeated Kofi and Bourne for the tag titles in a house show for the tag team titles, and John Morrison and Miz won the tag team championships in a house show in 2008 too.
  8. Titles are defended at house shows so that the house shows draw more. Wouldnt you be more willing to see a match if the title is on the line
    • Like Like x 1
  9. exactly what i was going to post. High five son.
  10. im kanye.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Storyline wise = Pointless (but not entirely)
  12. How often to they defend titles at house shows anyway? Honestly I think it doesn't make sense because even on RAW or SMACKDOWN you only see a title defense once in a blue moon. Back in the Attitude Era you'd see the titles get put on the line all the time, but these days title shots are left to the PPVs.

    And RE: the comments about title shots at house shows being bigger draws... That also doesn't make sense because everybody would know the reigning champion wouldn't lose. When's the last time a title's changed hands off the air?

  13. Not everyone is as cool and insider as you, my little brother and his friends were on the edge of their seats thinking Ryback was about the win the WWE Championship just a month ago. Because, you know, kids actually go to these house shows.

    Plus, the tag titles have changed two times over the last four(?) years at a house show, and they've also at times had the challenger win the title only for it to be reversed as a twist at times. And, didn't Bret Hart also win his first World Title at a house show that could later be bought on VCR?

    Title matches definitely sell, if for the kids than anything else. Why not have the title on the line when you're going to have the same match at the house show anyway?

  14. Honestly, I highly doubt kids would be boo-ing if titles weren't on the line. Like I said, there are rarely any title matches even on RAW or Smackdown, and the fans still get into it. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it's much more exciting for kids who don't realize the title wouldn't change hands off the air. But kids don't go alone, and they certainly dont pay for their tickets themselves, or even know how to get a ticket. If title matches did actually sell, then why wouldn't WWE indicate there would be a title defense? That sounds unlike the marketing whores of WWE.

    I think house shows are just for the people the event is closest to. Title matches and top superstars aren't promised to be there, it's just icing on the cake.
  15. I guess is like defending the title at NXT. I would mark my ass off if Neville randomly wins the US title
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Well you figure if people see that a title is being defended at a house show the amount of people at the show will increase. The likely hood of titles changing hand is slim but you still paid to see a good match which you more than likely will get.
  17. No, but that doesn't change the fact that they'll be excited for them when they are there.

    Perhaps because Smackdown and RAW shows are broadcasted on TV, have better cards and have all of the top wrestlers cutting promo's? The house show I went to had matches like Jinder Mahal vs The Great Khali, Aksana vs Natalya and Heath Slater vs Zach Ryder. I think you can tell the difference between a house show and a TV Show just by looking at those matches.

    Considering the people that pay for the kids tickets are usually the ones sitting on their phones the entire time playing solitaire waiting for the show to end, I really don't think they care about the predictability of the matches.

    But they do. The WWE had advertisements going for at least three months before the house shows across Australia advertising the US Title and WWE Title matches.

    You do realize that RAW and Smackdown is just one part of wrestlers schedule, right? ALL top stars are at house shows. It isn't just an icing on the cake, it's a guarantee.

    There hasn't been one house show I've been too where it hasn't ended in a match between two top stars fighting for a world title.
  18. Titles have changed off air though guys....STOP IGNORING MY POST :angry:

  19. Was it really necessary to quote every sentence separately?

    First of all, I didn't realize you're in Australia. International advertising is a completely different story. And yes, I do know that wresters aren't limited to just RAW and Smackdown - in fact, you made my next point. You're wrong when you say that it's guaranteed that ALL top stars will be at the house shows. There's priority involved. These wrestlers do more than wrestle. For example, just recently CM Punk, AJ and a couple other stars were promoting over at a convention, and thus were absent during the house shows. Of course they didn't miss RAW or Smackdown. Or what about slightly-injured wrestlers? They typically show up or even compete at the televised shows, house shows not so much.

    I just think it's rather presumptuous to say that house shows are merely for kids who don't know any better. Some people just want to see a show, and see their favorite wrestlers. Which is why I said title matches, regardless of the inclusion, are just icing on the cake.
Draft saved Draft deleted