Title Shot v. #1 Contender

I really hate the way the WWE uses the term #1 Contender.  Implied in this idea, is that there are a list of contenders for any title.  For the WWE title I have no idea who the number 2-5 contenders for the WWE title is.  I could rank the top five contenders for the World Title, but that does not mean anything in the WWE Universe. 

The WWE should just use the term Title Shot.  The Big Show is not really the #1 contender for the World Title at Night of Champions.  He just has a title shot.  The guy with the Money In the Bank contract does not become the instant #1 contender, they just have a title shot.  A title shot is a transaction, the #1 contender if a statue compared to a list of other contenders.

In Boxing and MMA you can find a listings of contenders.  The #1 contender does not always get the next title shot.  Some times the #2, #3, #4, or #5 contender gets a title shot.  Sometimes the champ tried to avoid the #1 contender and sometimes the #1 contender whats the title shot to wait for a better payday.  Just because a fighter is the #1 contender they do not just the next title shot.

If the WWE did to contender ratings there are more interesting stories that could be told.  I think the stories about heel champions avoiding the #1 contender can be a good way to get heat.  I think stories about top wrestlers climbing the latter trying to get a title.  I think these devices could frame great stories.

I feel that buy using the term #1 contender without really using contenders, the WWE is hurting the stories it tells.  People will accept the idea that people who are not the next in line get the title shot.  You can tell stories about contractual title shots.  You can tell stories of people jumping the line and champs avoiding the #1 contender without using a GM. 


Popular Posts