A champion getting themselves intentionally disqualified has always been a good way to draw heat. It also makes it easier for the champion to retain the championship if he's willing to bend to rules. So my question to all of you is should a title belt be allowed to change hands as the result of a disqualification.Should a title belt be allowed to change hands as the result of a disqualification?No, it should not be allowed to change hands as a result of a disqualification. What if the defending champion is a face and he gets disqualified unintentionally? Then the title would change hands. For instance, when Hogan feuded with Mr. Perfect he was disqualified because the referee saw him with brass knuckles which the Genius, Perfect's manager at the time, gave to Perfect. Hogan got hold of the foreign object and was about to hit Perfect and when the referee saw it he disqualified Hulk. So Perfect won the match on a disqualification. If the title were to change hands as a result of a disqualification then Perfect would have been the new WWF World Champion.
When the WWF did tinker with the title changing hands on a disqualification with the Steiner Brothers-Quebecers Tag team title match in the %26quot;Province of Quebec%26quot; rules it had the unintended consequence of resulting in the Quebecers becoming the new WWF Tag Team Champions. The rules were the titles can change hands on a disqualification and the team can get disqualified by piledriving your opponent and throwing your opponent over the top rope. When Rick threw Jacques over the top rope the referee disqualified the Steiners resulting in new tag team champions. The Steiners obviously did not intend for this to happen; but under the title-can-change hands on a DQ rules, they were disqualified and the title changed hands that night.
Starrcade 1993 US title match is another example with Stunning Steve Austin winning the title in a 2-out-of-3 falls match against the defending champion Dustin Rhodes. Austin won the first fall when Rhodes threw him over the top rope which resulted in a disqualification. So Austin won the first fall and eventually the match and the US title because of a disqualification. If there is a rule change and titles can change hands as a result of a disqualification it can have bad consequences as well because Champions could lose their title through getting unintentionally disqualified through no fault of their own. Plus, I like the titles can not change hands on a disqualification rules because it adds more intrigue to a feud and a fan is finally happy when the face does defeat the heel for the titles. For instance, when the Tag Team Champions The Nasty Boys feuded with the Legion of Doom the Nasty Boys would get intentionally disqualified and/or counted out in house shows. The Nasty Boys were so disliked by fans that in Summer Slam 1991 fans finally cheered when LOD defeated The Nasty Boys in a No count-out/no disqualification rules. The rules are fine the way it is.Should a title belt be allowed to change hands as the result of a disqualification?if its the champ who gets disqualified than yea i believe the titles should be change because that for me is like cheating. its not fair for the opponent because its not their fault.Should a title belt be allowed to change hands as the result of a disqualification?no.it kinda depends.i think the champion should be stripped the title if its intential.but tna is wayyy better on the DQ thing.its always no contest.makes way more since than winning cause ur opponent cheated
HAH!!!Should a title belt be allowed to change hands as the result of a disqualification?Yes it should be allowed to change hands. Yes, as you've already mentioned, getting yourself intentionally disqualified is a great way to draw heat and get booed. But the problem is, I hate it because it ruins matches. I mean, you see a great back and forth match and you're on the edge of your seat, waiting for someone to get the win. And then all of a sudden, the match is over because the champ just leaves or gets a weapon or hits the ref. I hate those endings, it just seems like a cop out. I'd rather have a decisive finish to a great match, not a lame disqualification.Should a title belt be allowed to change hands as the result of a disqualification?Yes, if they take out the ref, get counted out, choke or hit their opponet with a weaponShould a title belt be allowed to change hands as the result of a disqualification?I think so, but only when a someone gets disqualified under certain conditions (ie Is done on purpose, or the ref is not being misled).Should a title belt be allowed to change hands as the result of a disqualification?In a way, I do think that it should change hands in a DQ, just because that way a champion can't get themselves intentionally disqualified in order to retain their title. Having the title change hands would be more fair and it would prevent matches from ending in favor of a heel champion very often.
But, I agree with what you say about it helping the champion get heat. By getting themselves disqualified, it gets the audience worked up and they start disliking the heel even more. And, usually when the audience starts hating a heel more, they start liking the face more and getting behind him because they want to see him defeat the heel.
So, I guess I would say that champions should retain their titles when they get disqualified just because it helps them get more heat and can help build up their gimmick.Should a title belt be allowed to change hands as the result of a disqualification?At first I was unsure about this, but once I'd given it quite abit of thought, I'd made up my mind. I think that if the champion intentionally gets himself disqualified then he should lose the title without a doubt. Then the challenger who was contending for it wins the title, and then he will have the chance to prove himself in his first title defence to see if he is a worthy and good champion. If he isn't, then whoever he faces will win the title fairly and show that they are a more worthy champion.
If this happens then there is no problem at all. And in my opinion, it is a fair and good way to go about winning the title and being the champion. It shows who the true champion is meant to be, and works out the best it can for the WWE in my opinion. So I definately think this is the best option to go with and I believe this is how WWE should have this rule.Should a title belt be allowed to change hands as the result of a disqualification?I know they've used that rule before...they did it in World Class back in the day, plus TNA had that rule apparently when Abyss beat Sting for the title a few years back.
What I think they should do instead is title matches are no disqualification. There must be a pinfall or submission regardless.Should a title belt be allowed to change hands as the result of a disqualification?No. I think that Vince McMahon should do what TNA is doing and give the referees authority. Like when Cena returned and won the Royal Rumble and fought Randy Orton at No Way Out. When Orton hit the referee, that's when I wish WWE referees had authority so they could restart the match. That's just my opinion.Should a title belt be allowed to change hands as the result of a disqualification?If a champion wreslter gets themselves intentionally disqualified just to get out of the match or when he believes he is about to be defeated everytime he defends the title. Then yeah i do think the title belt should be allowed to change handsShould a title belt be allowed to change hands as the result of a disqualification?yes it should. especially if it was intentional. orton always disqualified 2 keep his champion %26amp; i always hated that.Should a title belt be allowed to change hands as the result of a disqualification?I have two sides to this theory, and I will explain both. I have two answers, one yes, and one no.
Yes, it should change hands if the defender got disqualified, because most of the time, when the defender gets DQ'ed in a title match, it's intentional, which proves that the defender is clearly afraid to face his challenger. Now that's not a trait a true champion has. A real champion faces whoever he goes up against. A perfect example is John Cena. He doesn't back down from a fight. He'll gladly face anyone Vince McMahon puts him up against, and will give it his all.
Now for the other side. No, it should not change. When the champion gets DQ'ed on purpose and the match ends, the challenger probably didn't even do anything to prove that s/he is a champion themselves. A perfect example of a champ that gets DQ'ed intentionally is Randy Orton. Did you watch SummerSlam? Randy probably restarted the match three-four times, trying to get himself DQ'ed in order to retain. And it was obvious he was doing it on purpose. There was also another match (I don't remember at which PPV) where Randy was champion about to face against Shawn Michaels. It was about five seconds into the match when Orton punched Shaw in the groin. Therefore, he retained.
I just don't know my final answer. This is one of the many questions that can be answered with a yes and with a no. I guess I'm leading more towards yes.Should a title belt be allowed to change hands as the result of a disqualification?In my opinion any blatant disregard for the rules such as a disqualification should result in the belt going to the challenger .Should a title belt be allowed to change hands as the result of a disqualification?well i would say no cuz nt always does the champion do that also dq is not realy winning as it is well winning a easier way
plus only randy orton does that nd wen he does that they usually end up making a match with dq the title cn change handsShould a title belt be allowed to change hands as the result of a disqualification?The are speculations on this issue of course. A contender should get a rematch.. or should be tripped of the title.Should a title belt be allowed to change hands as the result of a disqualification?yes it should, makes it to easy for the champ(s) just to get DQ'd and keep the titles - not fair.
I was pissed when the British Invasion took out the ref to keep the titles and to screw over Beer Money Inc.
things need to change!Should a title belt be allowed to change hands as the result of a disqualification?I think so, if you lose the match, you lose the title, simple as that, no matter how you lose, a lost is a lostShould a title belt be allowed to change hands as the result of a disqualification?I think it should. To be labelled a champion you should have the qualities and sportsmanship of a champion. Going through loopholes and getting disqualified on purpose to retain a title is dirty, and shouldn't be tolerated. If I was a challenger going for a title belt and the defender intentionally disqualified himself, I'd protest to keep the fight going just so I could vent my frustration.
EDIT: had no idea we were talkin about wrestling. What a huge waste of time, it's fake and pre-planned anyways. Who wins the title belt, etc. It's all pre-planned and fake. Such a lame %26quot;sport%26quot;
EDIT2: There wouldn't be a need to %26quot;hate%26quot; if this were actually a competitive sport. I competed with contenders in the kickboxing ring, only thing is, it WASNT PLANNED OUT.
Try putting some time into a sport with meaning, and difficulty. Sorry but there's no difficulty in being a glorified gymnastShould a title belt be allowed to change hands as the result of a disqualification?first of all...if there is a %26quot;title belt%26quot; involved then it is not a real sport. Therefore, it shouldn't matter if someone is DQ'd because it simply DOES NOT MATTER!!! Go do something productive with your life besides wrestling.Should a title belt be allowed to change hands as the result of a disqualification?I think the belt should change hands.
Don't be such a hater R@staPoet.
