WWE Debate: Can a Match Without a Storyline Be Just as Good?

I recently had the chance to meet one of the more entertaining 12-year-old kids I have ever met in my life. Trust me, this is leading somewhere.

He was walking around a wedding rehearsal dinner, without once breaking character, as if he was a war vet with a limp and a southern accent, and he was telling everyone about how things were much better in his day.

It was awesome.

I had a great conversation with him and his family, and one of the things we discussed was wrestling, after he found out I wrote about it on, what is, nearly a daily basis.

He seemed to have a great grasp of what was real and what was fake, but he did ask me one question which I must say had me stumped.

He asked: "Why are the people wrestling for belts always fighting about something else?"

At first, I though the question would be easy to answer; conflict makes things more interesting. But then, I started thinking back to matches from when I was a kid and realized something: not every title match had a storyline to go with it.

The main titles usually did, but the IC and Tag titles would sometimes be defended simply because the challenger was the most deserving.

It was still mostly a heel vs. a face, but that wasn't always the case. Many times, the match would turn heads even if it was nothing more than a one-off match between the two superstars.

When WWE had only one hour of Raw and another hour on Saturdays, it was obvious there were less storylines because there was less time to build them. But even with the increased screen time they have now, it does not mean every match has to have a feud behind it.

Remember when Dolph Ziggler and Daniel Bryan faced off at Bragging Rights and the following Raw and SmackDown in a series of three outstanding matches?

Do you remember the storyline behind those matches?

You don't because there wasn't a storyline. It was just two guys giving it all they had and stealing the show three shows in a row.

WWE needs to realize that sometimes they can give themselves a break on building storylines and just give us more wrestling in general. After all, we watch it for the wrestling, not the promos and interviews.

There is no question that WWE has built themselves up by featuring intriguing storylines to go along with their matches, but the mentality of having every match, with the exception of squashes, needing a feud to support it almost seems like overkill.

Having a few major feuds and a couple of minor feuds would be enough for most fans, as long as they got to see plenty of in-ring action as well.

WWE will experiment more during house shows by having matches with no real significance, and often times, they are just as entertaining as the matches with a conflict behind it.

Sometimes we see WWE catch lightning in a bottle when they randomly pair two guys up for a match and then realize their chemistry in the ring would make for an excellent feud. Doing this more can only lead to good things.

I cannot speak for everyone, but when I look at a PPV and try to decide if it is worth buying, I try and judge it by what the quality of the matches looks like and not why those matches are happening.

Maybe that's just me.

What do you think? Does every title match need a storyline to go with it?