I've seen complaints voiced for booking decisions like Maddie vs Eris and this is an elephant in the room type topic that's dwelled in my mind for years and I've never got the chance to address it. I had a question that I think will promote an interesting discussion.

What is the level of importance of promoing when it relates to title matches or FPV matches?

For instance, if a champion's reign hasn't been very long and they're defending their title, and the writers believes the challenger cut the better promos, should the promoing quality be the strongest regarded factor of the match decision? Or should the booking matter more?

For those who pick promoing, what would you do to avoid the possibility of many short and potentially underwhelming reigns? Not that it's guaranteed to happen, but there could be a strong possibility of that happening.

For those who pick booking, why then should anyone even put in effort when they're facing a champion in their first defense if they're automatically going to lose in the first place? And does this ideal sacrifice the integrity of EAW being a promo-based fed?

Discuss.

I've always believed there should be a good balance between the two. It's just one of those topics that's tough to have an decisive answer to since both components of an e-fed is strongly important and needed for it to be run successfully and be more fun with people who takes part in it. But in this case if anything their should be something that the former champion should get an automatic rematch at another FPV or something.

When I used to run a fed once upon a time, I made "champions advantage" a thing. I had a judging scale which was rather loose as far as exact points as much as it was a rating scale on how the judges felt the promo met the criteria which was creativity, match relevance, maintaining interest, and such. If the challenger did not beat the champion by at least 10 points a cording to the scale, the champion retained. If the match was decided by the "Champions Advantage" then I made sure it reflected as such in the match i.e. countout, DQ, or some other way where the champion would keep their title but lose the match.

Personally, I think if a person promos well enough that week or over a certain period leading up their title match or whatever honour (see EE match at PFP), they should win it. The champ can always have a rematch, because they too would have have earned the title by promoing hard and promoing well. There are probably a few exceptions based on this.

I could be biased though, purely because I'm 0-4 at FPVs as Clark when I think I had a good case to win every single time, particularly when you look at the fact the person who beat me every time (Nick remains to be seen, but his track record suggests it could happen) barely lasted long afterwards.

I ain't gonna turn this into another thread about my FPV record though, again the above was really just an example of how consistent promoing should be rewarded and therefore should potentially end a reign.

The thing about Maddie/Eris is that it made no sense whatsoever to the story. Maddie was screwing Aria out of the title at HOG and was just establishing herself as the top heel after being the best promoer in the vixens division for months. She had a long line of challengers available in Aria/Eris/Haruna if they didn't have that stupid second title/Cailin etc and Eris/Maddie wasn't even a feud, Eris came off a title loss the week before and all of a sudden wins the title with no build and made no sense with the corresponding story going on in the vixens division.

Along with the fucking fact Eris turned heel a week later anyway. Maddie didn't need a ''long'' reign but it should have been longer anyway to build her up so when somebody (a face) beats her, it actually means shit. Aria or Eris (who doesn't turn heel) beating her eventually would have been a far better pay-off instead of building Maddie up for a one month reign. It came off  exactly like the Haruna/Tarah situation at PFP just without the entire vixen division being buried, we don't get a face conquering the heel and getting a reign but move onto ANOTHER heel vixen title reign.

If you're switching titles, at least make it mean something and let it make sense with the storylines taking place which didn't happen. People might say Eris outpromoed Maddie (which I don't agree with it) but that doesn't = throw all logic and build out the window. Eris didn't need the title to join Hexagun but Maddie gets fed to Eris JUST to push a lame stable to convince everybody they matter.

As for the question - I don't think everybody needs long reigns and I think it's a bit of an issue in EAW atm with seemingly everybody getting six month reigns but again, i do think for title matches build, storylines, logic and promoing should be balanced.

I think it's a matter of not just promo quality, but promo consistency. Let's say the challenger is the better promoer that week, that isn't enough for them to win in my opinion. The champion has already proven that they can consistently promo at the level they are so if the challenger hasn't been able to match that consistency in, let's say the last month, then who's to say that they'll be a strong/reliable champion? I'd rather the belt was on someone who consistently cuts good promos rather than someone who cut one great one.

Maddie/Eris is an interesting case, and I think I'll avoid it after this paragraph of comments: Maddie's title run was a short one, but a good one with a signature defense against Aria. Maddie can definitely challenge my CWF World Championship run for best transitional title run in efeds, whether she was supposed to be booked that way or not.

Regardless of whether you think promoing or giving the champion a good length run is more important, bookers need to make sure the decision can lead to something for both promoers. I'm not saying that the bookers should HAVE to answer to the promoers, or that the promoers DESERVE a justification behind a booking decision (in fact, DON'T DO THIS VOLUNTARILY, BOOKERS... this could lead to promises, and there is NO NEED for you to make promises to the members); it's more for the booker to ask him/herself: Could I defend this title change in front of both people, provided that they both did a good job?

Not every championship reign has to be 6 months long to be considered legitimate. Furthermore, Maddie didn't lose because of a storyline or because of Hexa-gun, she lost simply because the writers felt she was outpromoed. There have been numerous occasions in real life where the diva, knockout, or any women's wrestler will lose the title without much build to it. It's nothing new and it's a part of the trade. I also don't agree that we can decisively say someone has been the "best promoer" when a significant portion of promos are subjective (not entirely, however). I think that'd be a topic of debate among many people to be honest, everyone has a somewhat different opinion on that sort of thing and nobody can really say with any authority whether this person has been better than that person other than the writers who read them. Even the writers are making judgment calls here, so let's not pretend it's some sort of exact science. Not every loss or win has to have a greater overarching story to it even if a title is involved; sometimes, the beef created on that promos page is a bigger story than what is actually written in scripts themselves and it's a huge credit to the creativity of all the people here.

In regards to the actual question, you can't think about this in black and white. If DDD and I are promoing on each other and the writer notices the slimmest margin of difference teetering one way or the other, it doesn't really matter who wins if it's an exhibition, but if DDD is the champion and I'm the challenger yet that particular writer thought I had "slightly" better promos in the given week, I still wouldn't expect to win and vice versa if the writer thought DDD cut slightly better promos than me. For a writer to make the decision to have a somewhat newly crowned champion lose the belt in a short amount of time with no storyline or controversy behind it, that indicates to me that they thought their opponent resoundingly outmatched them on the promos page, that it wasn't a contest, and it would be wrong for the champion to retain simply because they're the reigning title holder. A lot of people have misconceptions about how this should be handled, and I'm not saying my methods are exactly correct, but that's as close an estimate as I can give. Nonetheless, I see no problem in a short reign if the champion is outpromoed by what is considered to be a significant margin, but usually that just isn't the case. Some people are just exceptions.

We were going to have Eris in Hexa-gun whether or not she won the Vixens Championship.. because well, we just wanted her in it and she was more than happy to jump in. Please stop accusing Hexa-gun of pulling strings and making Eris champ like it was in our hands and it was completely our decision, because it's not a good look for you accusing people like this. Eris really thought she was going to lose but she promoed her hardest for it anyway because it was her moment and her title match, and she figured win or lose, she'd be getting recognized for her hard work, and if things don't fall in her favor at SV, there's still Hexa-gun stuff to look forward to. She out-promoed Maddie, I read the promo war, it was very interesting, but I believe Eris really did better. It was already a given that after the Title match of the Empress winner, the second placer would be the next contender for the Vixens Championship, so building this match up for two shows (voltage --officially challenging maddie and dy--saying where the match takes place) isn't really that big of a deal. No hate towards Maddie, or you Demon, but I don't see why we need pushing for our stable further to "convince everybody we matter" when we already stand firmly on our own as seen in our past matches and our FPV wins. We want Eris in Hexa-gun because we want SIX functioning, promoing members that we can't really get if we don't replace The Burned Man. She's in Hexa-gun now. And she's Vixens Champion as of SV. That's that. There's no deeper meaning.

Sorry for that (semi)rant. I let it slide in the other thread and didn't respond, but then I see he also did this in another. He's just not gonna stop whining about it and stirring trouble, and blaming Hexa-gun for the results cause he can't accept the fact that Maddie lost lol.

Anyway, in my opinion, I do believe that title matches should be very much promo-based. Of course, you want to build that person up to be a great champion with a decent reign, and it's great that you're putting them out there to prove why you made him/her champ. But what does it say about a Champion if he/she can't out promo his first or second challenger/s? You gave him/her that gold for a reason, and if they can't live up to it and don't want to use that gold to their advantage, then they probably don't deserve it. It's highly frustrating to believe that you outpromoed someone and know you'll lose anyway because "they cant drop the title yet"... erm... I'm sure it's not the case all the time cause wrestling is scripted and lame, but it's mostly because I understand that decisions are made a certain way for a reason (un) Do what ya gotta do. I have no problem with the system now, it seems to be alright with everyone. I'll just trust that the writers are making the right decisions. >.<

Promos shouldn't determine title reigns or wins. If I'm the writer and want someone to be champion for 6 months, they'll be champion for 6 months, even if they don't promo at all. (Not that I'd know if they did or not).

Depends on how you look at EAW.

If you look at it like a company, then promoing has less importance as long as the champion is active and promoing. Your plans for that champion can always change if you think of better storylines or you think someone else really deserves the belt.

If you look at EAW like a game, and you always want your best promoers as champion. Then you're more inclined to cut someone's title reign short everytime they get outpromoed.

I always felt EAW was too predetermined with storylines, but in most cases the guys involved in them deserved it with their promos anyway.

Unless if the writers have something special in mind, I believe all matches should be promo based. If champions felt protected then why bother trying at all? Not everyone is like Xav, Maddie, or even Cam who I've seen promo their asses off no matter how long they think their title reign was going to last. I believe that fear of losing your title is what makes a player sit back and think about how they're going to approach their feud. If I was defending a title in a match you best believe I want my victory to be assured because I was the better promoer that week. Its what turns newbies like myself and Aria into legends like DDD, Y2Impact, HBG, etc.

Now, the writers themselves may have ideas and that can sway the decision, but promos should always be taken into account, especially when pondering for a 'unique finish'.

I know it wasn't his first reign, but I don't remember this kind of backlash when Crash's last world title reign was so short so idk why now it's this huge question like it's the first title reign to be short while the champion promoed. I think it should stay as it is, a mixture of everything. At the same time, I don't count such reigns to be equal to more powerful reigns.

Yes, the Battleground result is already out now, so this is the perfect time for me to talk.

I am now officially having a worse title reign than Maddie with only 2 weeks. But I'm not mad... Cailin deserved it since she's promoing everyday while I was not. and I can see Kendra winning the vixens title and deserved it because of the same reason. I'm sure Maddie accepted her defeat if she thinks that Kendra's effort is greater than her.

So yeah, IMO Length of title reign is very important.... on one condition. It's important if the current holder can back it up with decent promos every single title defense. If they lost because of some sort of bullshit way even they work their ass off on the promo page, that's really unforgivable.

This thread illustrates how poor an idea it is to admit you were outpromoed, even if you know you were. You either decrease your chance of winning or give your lame-ass opponent an alibi when they lose. Don't undermine yourself complimenting someone who would never do the same for you.