I Think It's Time To Hit the MITB Briefcase With Dem Deavours...

[Mike the Executioner]

I think RVD defended his case against Shelton Benjamin also.

 

[Vinny Lupton]

Not "in defense of mitb" but just being reality here - most wrestling is predictable if you've been watching for more than 4 years. I guarantee alot of little kids were when Sheamus cashed in, because they havent been watching since George Bush Sr. was in office. This shyt's for kids, brehs

 

[Vinny Lupton]

I don't get why they feel the need to make everything an annual event... MITB works once in a while when there's space in a PPV for a big midcard ladder match... HITC works once in a while when there's a massive feud involving at least one unhinged wrestler... TLC worked three times because of a very particular set of competitors and conditions.

They saddle themselves with using the same gimmicks every year and wonder why the product feels stale. Give us an angle or character that demands a new match... less time reminiscing over a time when characters like the Undertaker spawned casket matches and HITC matches and more Wyatt Family Barn Brawls... or something... I'm not a fukking writer.

I think it worked at WM. Gave lots of people something to do. Fighting for the IC title every WM makes the IC title looks stupid

 

[OmegaK2099]

yeah thats a promo bray wyatt should drop: "I hold in my hands your percieved salvation, your accolade, the reward which you flaunt atop your tower of everest .... *holds up belt then tosses it down and steps on it* AND IT AINT EVEN REAL GOLD! False Gold! For a False Champion!"

 

[DocZulu]

Predictability isn't necessarily a problem. Most wrestling matches have finite outcomes.

The outcome of a match, however, ought to be offset by thoughtful booking & storylines. Sheamus had no compelling or unique storyline, and thus, when he cashes it we are outraged by the predictability.

Money in the Bank used to be compelling because it complemented WWE's other storylines. Now, the briefcase itself is being relied upon to provide a compelling storyline.

And that's a problem, because the product (inside and outside of the ring) lacks imagination.

They need to scrap it. It's way too predictable. When Rollins got hurt and they announced a tournament at Survivor Series I instantly knew Reigns would win and then Shemaus cashes in and walks out champion. When Rollins did it at Wrestlemania it was a true mark out moment but everything else has been.

 

[DocZulu]

Jack Tunney never would've allowed it.

 

[MrSinnister]

If we were to go by predictability, the MITB would've been abolished a long time ago.

says: Let me go!! If we didn't have the MITB, we probably wouldn't have been witness to the GOAT Cashin, my motherfukker 4 life, Seth "The Truth" Rollins!!! He saved that match from being shytted on royally. It was a great WM match, but you could hear the crowd getting ready to lynch Sika and boo the hell out of Uber Reigns actually upsetting Brock when they were both down, until Seth came out.

For this, the Edge and CM Punk's cashins, I say keep it.



Just let it have a few dead years, so you'd appreciate the great cashins. The stories will have to get better if they're going to stay in business, and MITB is a great chance to get misused stars, and next ones worthy for ME scene a chance to break the monotony. If anything, should stop the losing streaks after getting it, unless the winner is cocky as shyt.

But Seth Rollins could put most CB's to shame with that closing speed

 

[mr x]

I know you're just throwing things out there, but I'll take exception to three of your points.

1. Letting a first contender's spot change hands is a bit weird. Why would one defend that? Why not challenge for the title before it comes to that?

2. I feel like a year is already too long. Someone waiting over a year to try and attain a lifelong goal when the opportunity is right there doesn't sit well with me.

3. Lastly, why would someone cash in on a lesser title?

With that said, I agree with your overall premise of changing things up.

@PimpstarP (on my tablet and fukked up the reply)

 

[HollywoodP]

I know you're just throwing things out there, but I'll take exception to three of your points.
1. Letting a first contender's spot change hands is a bit weird. Why would one defend that? Why not challenge for the title before it comes to that?
2. I feel like a year is already too long. Someone waiting over a year to try and attain a lifelong goal when the opportunity is right there doesn't sit well with me.
3. Lastly, why would someone cash in on a lesser title?
With that said, I agree with your overall premise of changing things up.
@PimpstarP (on my tablet and fukked up the reply)

While I don't disagree with some of you thought processes...this shyts wrestling...you can always fill in the plot holes. A #1 contender spot should always be up for grabs...why would one defend it? Cuz they're doing it to impress somone...Cuz their taking too long to cash in and the boss puts in a rule where you have to earn the right to keep the #1 contendership...cuz they're a fighter whose down for any challenge...or just because thats the way it is...kinda like how Japan is with the G1 winner. Theres a thousand ways they can explain why they're defending it...especially if a babyface has it...which is my whole psychology about it...more options...A year is too long? Not in my opinion. That would be like saying a year is too long for a champion to hold a belt...Gives wrestlers a chance to really get a good gimmick going with the thing...or maybe gives the fans the chance to forget someones got it and boom fukkery happens. One of these times the MITB holder is gonna go down with an injury and it probably WILL go longer than a year...might as well just nip it in the bud and get rid of the possibility...I really just like the idea of having multiple Mr MITB's out there...maybe feuding with each other. To your third point...the non-WWE world Heavyweight titles aren't really supposed to be lesser...just different...tho thats kinda how WWE has it set up...When Brock was champ...theres now way in hell anyone should be challenging him...but you could challenge the IC champ. When Sandow had the thing...you knew he wasn't gonna beat Cena for it...but he could have beat Del Rio or Curtis Axel for their belts. Or if Kofi won...he could have challenged the tag team champs. Maybe a guy whose won every title but the Intercontinental title wants to be a Grand Slam winner. Maybe the MITB champ just fukkin hates the US Champions fukkin guts.

Frankly for me its about just having more options...more outcomes...more scenarios...keeping things fresh...its only been around 10 years and they way they have it, its already getting stagnant. There should be endless possibilities. Its not this prestigious thing where its gotta be this one way. Like there's even been Rumble winners who havent challenged for the championship at the main event at wrestlemania. I get what your saying...but I think I just have a different philosophy when it comes to wrestling. I like the idea of treating wrestling like a competitive sporting event sometimes...but other times I just want some fukk shyt to happen.

 

[mr x]

Appreciate the response.
Yea I prefer for them to play it more straight.
I think your notion of having faces win it more is good.

Never really liked the idea of someone winning a match over 5 of the best in the league, but then being scared to face the champ.

 

[mr x]

Dbl

 

[mr x]

Tpl