The Rematch Clause: for or against?

[Emperor]

The purpose of this thread is to share and discuss our views on the rematch clause. I'm sure we all know what the rematch clause is, but just to clarify: every wrestler has a [kayfabe] clause in his contact that states that if he loses his title, he is obligated to a rematch for that title within 30 days of losing it.

I am against the rematch clause. It's not a big deal, and it certainly doesn't spoil my enjoyment of WWE, but I'd rather see the rematch clause removed than kept around. From a kayfabe perspective, I believe that if a wrestler loses his belt, he should go to the back of the line. He has been proven as inferior, he has to step down and give other people a chance, and if he is truly good enough to be champion again, he will quickly rise the ranks and earn another title shot. In addition, this could theoretically result in X beating Y for the title, Y beating X for the title in Y's rematch, X beating Y again in X's rematch ad infinitum. No other wrestler would ever get a title shot. Of course, this would never happen in the scripted world of pro-wrestling but it's a huge flaw on the purely kayfabe level.

From a booking perspective, I can see the immediate benefit: it's an easy (and lazy) way to write a lengthy feud. I'm sure many of you know that I dislike WWE's recent booking practice of having multiple matches on multiple consecutive PPVs between the same two wrestlers for every single top-level feud. Of course, this isn't entirely caused by the rematch clause: WWE could easily book such a feud without using the rematch clause by having a bunch of dirty finishes or actually writing a good lengthy feud that progressively becomes more and more captivating. Still, I think the "you lost, back of the line" mentality would make WWE a lot more interesting and unpredictable, where one could feasibly see unlikely challengers to the top titles as the top guys wouldn't be hogging all the title shots instead having lower-billing feuds until their next title shot.

So, do you love the rematch clause or do you hate it? If you love it, convince me! If you don't then...agree with me and fuel my ego!

P.S. This thread might be better placed in General Wrestling, but I am ignorant and not even sure whether the rematch clause exists outside of WWE or not. As an aside, I'm sure some of you knowledgeable wrestling fans will know the history/origin of the rematch clause. Please share it if you do, as I am very interested in how the rematch clause came into existence.

[Westy316]

I'm sorry but this is one of the most irrelevant threads I have seen in a long time. Why does it matter if there is a re match clause, to be fair in boxing there is pretty much always a rematch clause.

But wrestling is different if they don't want to use the rematch clause then they won't and if they "get rid" of the clause they will just do the rematch anyway.

So I would stop focusing on a meaningless point and get some counselling if it really upsets you.

[Lexicross]

I'm PRO re-match clause and on the rare occasions that it doesn't happen it feels pretty unjust (i.e.: Hart loses to Yoko whom immediately loses to Hogan and Hart never got a chance to regain his title or imagine Hogan-Warrior II shortly after their first encounter and not the WCW fiasco from several years after the fact).

[Emperor]

I'm sorry but this is one of the most irrelevant threads I have seen in a long time. Why does it matter if there is a re match clause, to be fair in boxing there is pretty much always a rematch clause.

But wrestling is different if they don't want to use the rematch clause then they won't and if they "get rid" of the clause they will just do the rematch anyway.

So I would stop focusing on a meaningless point and get some counselling if it really upsets you.

If you read my post properly you would know that I am not upset at all; I just thought it would make for some interesting discussion. If you disagree and think it is pointless then that's fine, don't respond.

I do agree that wrestling bookers can just make the rematch anyway and I said as much. I guess my idea would be not so much to just abolish the rematch clause, but rather to make title rematches the exception and not the rule.

I'm PRO re-match clause and on the rare occasions that it doesn't happen it feels pretty unjust (i.e.: Hart loses to Yoko whom immediately loses to Hogan and Hart never got a chance to regain his title or imagine Hogan-Warrior II shortly after their first encounter and not the WCW fiasco from several years after the fact).

Indeed, there will be cases where it feels unjust to not have a rematch clause. But I feel that if the champion loses his title clean and without controversy, he shouldn't get a mandatory rematch. As far as Hogan/Warrior II, you raise a good point. I'm sure many people would love to have seen that and it would have drawn well, and I say that as one who really doesn't like big matches being redone just for the sake of it (Taker/HBK, Taker/HHH...), so that is definitely a point in favour of the rematch clause.

[Falcone]

I'm fine with the rematch clause when it's adhered to. Here. Have a rematch. You were champ. You deserve it.

But when they give someone endless opportunities I.E. Batista during the Khali feud, even being inserted into a feud he had no part of just so he could get another title shot, then it's buttfuck annoying.