[Jack Quinn]

Ok, I was thinking about this while talking with Tommy. Should we change the Onslaught title rules? It seems like the idea of a "pure" title has kind of run its course, especially given the people in the division right now. The way I see it, we have a couple of options:

1. Just try to re-work the divisions to get some of the brawlers out and the more "scientific" guys in, but leave the title alone as it is

2. Drop the pure rules part of it and just make it a third title, keeping it the Onslaught Championship

3. Drop the rules part of it, keep it as a third title, but rename it the OOWFtv Title

[The Canadian Content]

For some of the new (and not new but ignorant) people, could someone go over what the title's supposed to be?

[Jack Quinn]

The Onslaught title is supposed to follow the "pure" rules that ROH uses for one of their titles. That means a champion can loose the title on a disqualification, each wrestler only gets three rope breaks, each wrestler gets three warnings from the referee for breaking the rules, then it is an automatic disqualification. I think those are all of the differences

[The Canadian Content]

So it's basically the opposite of the DDT belt? I'm cool with that.

MTA: I voted to keep the stips.

[Mr. Dashbee]

ROH Pure Title Rules:
1. Strict 20 count on the floor.
2. Each wrestler gets 3 rope breaks - once used up, you cannot use the ropes to break a hold and your opponent can use the ropes to his/her advantage.
3. No closed fists - first closed fist results in a warning, additional closed fists result in loss of a rope break. If the wrestler is out of rope breaks in this situation, he/she will be disqualified.
4. Title can change hands on a count-out or disqualification.

Pretty close to Moose's description. I miss the ROH Pure Title, too. So I'm voting to keep the title, change up the divisions. Even though I always loved having a TV champ in wrestling.

[DevSop]

Go back to champ's choice. Unless you want to give your best pure wrestler (Alexander Darling) a long run to bring prestige back to the division.

Again, that's Alexander Darling 4 Champ.

This is my platform.

[The Canadian Content]

Feb 20, 2009 14:31:45 GMT -5 Mr. Dashbee said:

Even though I always loved having a TV champ in wrestling.

But when every title's defended every week, aren't they all TV titles?

[Mr. Dashbee]

Dev - what is champ's choice? Champ picks the rules/stipulation?

Psycho - I thought about that, too. If there was a TV champ, it would almost mean cutting back on other title defenses. Which can be good or bad.

[wld]

I voted to keep the title and the stips, and I'm not entirely sure we need to change up the division - at least not completely. One of the best parts about the Onslaught rules when they started was seeing how people who have styles completely opposite to the rules try to adapt to them.

And I say we give the belt to Alex - so I can beat him to complete my grand slam.

[Eric O'Mac]

GB: Champs Choice, I assume, started with Davin Moreland. The Onslaught Title was defended ONLY in I Quit matches. When I won the title, I defended in 15 Minutes of Fame matches. Good stipulation, but the actual stipulation was kind of confused by writers, bookers, and, at points, myself, and I dropped it to Bunny, who didnt have a stipulation. I don't recall Fire, AA, or Seamus having a stipulation either, and when Chris Cole won the title, he reinstated the Onslaught rules, which is MUCH easier to deal with than "name your stipulation", IMO.

[BC]

I voted to rename it the TV title. While I think the stips are a really cool idea, I didn't know until this thread that these stips existed for the Onslaught title.

[Concrete TG]

I think the "name your stip" thing started, actually, with Moose - he deliberately changed the stip to piss off Crete, and since the Onslaught Title could mean anything it made sense.... and pissed crete off even more since he still hasn't won it for the grand slam.

I liked the idea of the titleholder having stips on it, but if that's too confusing.....

[Mr. Dashbee]

Eric - thanks for the explanation. I actually like the champ determining the stip.

Is there an official list of who is in what division?

[Eric O'Mac]

There use to be, GB. A long time ago, people could only challenge for the belt that was in their division. It's how I got stripped of the Onslaught title the first time - because Eric was moved to the IC Division.

Still bitter.

[Road Warrior Shark]

I liked the Champs-Choose-The-Stipulation clause, even if it has only been sparsley enforced.

As much as I like the Idea of a TV Title, I don't think it works for us. Nearly every week the World & Intercontinental titles are defended. If they were defended more infrequently, then 'TV' title defenses have more meaning.
I don't mind it being Just a third title. we're at 30 plus people, so there shouldn't be any lack of challengers. If we shrink substantially, then revisit the idea.

[Tommy]

Feb 20, 2009 14:43:54 GMT -5 DevSop said:

Go back to champ's choice. Unless you want to give your best pure wrestler (Alexander Darling) a long run to bring prestige back to the division.

Again, that's Alexander Darling 4 Champ.

This is my platform.

The only way to bring prestige back to the division is to return the Man who has the longest Onslaught Title Reign, and who defended that title exclusively in "I Quit" matches.

So clearly, Alexander Darling 4 Champ.

[BC]

Isn't Alexander Darling, long run champ an oxymoron?

[Matte]

I like having the champion determine the stipulation. If the champion can be sure to make the stipulation completely clear to the rest of us, then it should be able to work.

[Eric O'Mac]

I am very against it for a couple of reasons. 1) It's hard to see interesting results when it's the same match over and over again. Davin made it work with the I Quit match, but even then, the matches got a little old. This also limits the way matches can end. 2) It really hurts the stipulation. I hate it when WWE and TNA overuse stipulations - it makes them seem less important. The same thing applies here. When you see an I Quit match every week, it makes it less important if you wanted to use it for another feud.

[Matte]

Actually, yea. Eric's right on this one. I guess I don't really care which way we go with the belt. Maybe change up the divisions, maybe alter the rules of the belt somehow.

[Fire-Babe]

I think I made one an inferno match, but that was it for my 'stips'

I wouldn't mind keeping it 'pure rules' but then have a legit hardcore belt (not just the DDT forget about it b/c it has it's own thread belt) to balance it out. But that's a different poll...

[DevSop]

Fire sort of hit on my idea. I think we could convert the IC belt to a more traditional workrate style belt and make the onslaught belt a hardcore/death match belt. I think it fits the current roster a lot better. Or just add a Death Match belt.