Tag champs vs Individual champs

Just a quick topic that has had me thinking for a while.

Tag team specialists are so called because they specialise in the art of double teaming and using it to their advantage. The tag champs are usually two individuals that work well as a team and might not have shone as individuals.

Now every so often, a commissioner will pair two individual wrestlers in a match against the tag champs. This has often been in the form of the WWE champ and challenger having to co exist against a formidable opponent. Sometimes, the singles champs have taken off the belts from the tag champs.

But my question is this - should that happen.

Shouldn't the logical booking say that the tag champs should always be the ones winning due to their expertise in the field of tag teaming?

In other words if Daniel Bryan and CM Punk were to team, shouldnt we be led to believe that they would struggle in a tag match against the current champs?

Of course the answer is no, but why not?

You wouldnt put Nadal and Federer as favourites against the Doubles champs (lack of research disables me from mentioning who they are but you get the drift).

For me, this is systematic of the problems with the tag division. It has become a joke and unfortunately has lost all credibility as a form of wrestling.

So the question I ask is, in your opinion, in a straight up match, who should win? The tag champs or the tagging individual champs?

I agree, there was a time where tag teams were portrayed as specialists at there craft and sucked in singles matches, the lines seem to have become blurried some what and does reduce the credibilty of the tag division when thrown together champs beat all and sundry (I'm looking at you Jericho)

Great Thread ( nearly as good as real life heel turns! )

It is very subjective.. Should the New Age Outlaws or Edge and Christian beat Rock and Austin. Yes they should because Rock and Austin were not out and out Supermen. However could you imagine Demolition or Hart Foundation ever going over Hogan and Warrior? Not on your life.. Those guys would kick out of just about any finisher known to man.

Modern Era it just isn't relevant due the complete lack of tag team specialists.

But interesting point nonetheless - the tennis analogy is perfect I was thinking it before I read it.

Good question, I think yes Federer and Nadal could take say... the Bryan brothers.

bretmeharty wrote:Good question, I think yes Federer and Nadal could take say... the Bryan brothers.

What if one turned heel on the other and smashed him in the back of the head with his racked before walking off the court?

The Legion of Doom were thought of as a credible main event tag-team in the late 80s/early 90s. They would quite often go on last at shows.

Dr Gregory House MD wrote:

bretmeharty wrote:Good question, I think yes Federer and Nadal could take say... the Bryan brothers.

What if one turned heel on the other and smashed him in the back of the head with his racked before walking off the court?

Backhand, forehand or overhead smash?

I like the question, should Tag Champs go over Singles Champions?

I don't think there is a simple yes or no answer here to be honest, I think that Tag Champions should definitely be considered favourites while in a tag match with anyone and while if it's down to out and out team work then they should have enough to win in their own enviroment, however, being a singles Champion should also mean that you have that little bit more class than the average singles competitor and if the Singles guy finds himself one on one with the Tag guy with their partners outside Brawling/KO'd then I can see why the singles champ's team would get the win

In 2008 they had Batista and Cena beat Pricele$$ for the titles to build their match at SummerSlam, I always felt Pricele$$ going over them in the Title re-match helped legitimise them as a potentially great team, shame they never did anything with them after the 3 match set with HBK and HHH

Dr Gregory House MD wrote:

bretmeharty wrote:Good question, I think yes Federer and Nadal could take say... the Bryan brothers.

What if one turned heel on the other and smashed him in the back of the head with his racked before walking off the court?

Would love to see Federer turn heel on Nadal. In the final at Wimbledon would be perfect, I'd say he'd get some serious heat from the crowd.

Mort wrote:

Dr Gregory House MD wrote:

bretmeharty wrote:Good question, I think yes Federer and Nadal could take say... the Bryan brothers.

What if one turned heel on the other and smashed him in the back of the head with his racked before walking off the court?

Would love to see Federer turn heel on Nadal. In the final at Wimbledon would be perfect, I'd say he'd get some serious heat from the crowd.

As long as Murray is at the end of it and recieving the smash

A good topic that highlights the problem with the tag division in WWE, and could have opened up debate.

But no, we have Federer turning heel on Nadal.

I think it's a good question, but one that doesn't really need to be considered today in WWE because of the lack of actual tag teams! The only tag team I can think of that I would class as a tag team rather than two singles are the Usos, with the current tag team champions Primo/Epico as a possibility.

In real terms, it would make sense for a long-term tag team to have an edge over two people who don't wrestle together. In the same way that a football team of players who play together all the time may have a good chance of beating a group of better players, but who have never played together before.

If the WWE ever do decide to actually develop tag teams again, this could be an interesting angle of a feud between a real tag team, and a tag team made up of individuals.

Samo wrote:A good topic that highlights the problem with the tag division in WWE, and could have opened up debate.

But no, we have Federer turning heel on Nadal.

My humble apologies Samo, I made a flippant comment, I didn't expect it to develop.