Monday, July 9, 2012

TNA's "Option C" vs WWE's "Money in the Bank". Which is Better?

by Brian Phelps

Recently, WrestleZone columnist Josh Isenberg wrote an article discussing his predictions for TNA's Destination X 2012 pay-per-view. In the article, Isenberg made the comment "This is the beginning of X Division champions being a Money in the Bank Winner." (in reference to "Option C" proposed by Austin Aries that allows the X-Division champion heading into Destination X pay-per-view the opportunity to relinquish the X-Division championship in favor of a shot at the TNA World Heavyweight Championship)

I think that was the silliest way Josh could've described "Option C". To compare Option C to Money in the Bank is ridiculous. They're nothing alike. The mere fact that you are comparing a title to a briefcase is insane on the face of it. Option C requires you to be the X-Division title holder going into the Destination X pay-per-view, which empowers the X-Division title and makes it more prestigious while WWE requires you to win a ladder match that guarantees you a shot at a WWE World Title at any time. The way Money in the Bank has been booked typically breeds weak or cowardly champions that are unable to get over even with a world title. Option C is better because it gives a FIGHTING CHAMPION who has already proven his worth in the X-Division a chance to grab the brass ring while simultaneously making the mid-card title more important as well as emphasizing the importance of the X-Division and the Destination X pay-per-view as a whole. Money in the Bank puts a bunch of random "contenders" (most of which were not contenders a week or two before the match) in a ladder match to decide who ends up becoming the next world champion by some sort of fluke 10 second match. Money in the Bank was supposed to be an easy and quick way to get a wrestler over, but has actually backfired. By winning a World Title via MITB cash-in, you are basically guaranteeing that you are going to be a weak champion that still isn't over (ex. Jack Swagger, Alberto Del Rio, CM Punk). CM Punk won Money in the Bank twice and was never as over from those title wins as he was by doing it the traditional way in 2011 (when he turned "Best in the World"). Option C comes off way better than MITB because the challenger has EVERYTHING to lose while the MITB winner has virtually nothing to lose (the MITB winner is not a champion, thus he has nothing to lose by an actual loss because he will be no worse off after losing his cash-in match than he was before he won MITB). This means that Option C is a more important match than the MITB because it pits the X-Division Champion against the World Heavyweight Champion for all the marbles. I would much rather see two fighting champions headlining a pay-per-view for the world title than a bunch of random guys in a ladder match only to watch the winner gain the World Title by pinning a champion who was already lying in the ring unconscious in a 5-second fluke win lol.

Sorry Josh, but Option C and Money in the Bank are apples and oranges. Option C is better than Money in the Bank. Also, if you know anything about TNA you know that "Feast or Fired" is a rip off of MITB. Option C is actually a moderately original idea. If anything, MITB is more closely related to the Royal Rumble. A bunch of guys competing for a shot at the world title at a later date. It's the same thing, all they did was just change the gimmick match from a battle royal to a ladder match. The basic premise is the exact same though.

1 comment:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.