Is it possible for the title to be the most important in modern wrestling?

[Grimmas]

In the Vince's document on announcers a discussion was made about WrestleMania main event being more important than the title.

 

The question remains, can the title ever be the most important thing in modern wrestling? No company has it that way (even NJPW and ROH). Are fans too cynical or know too much?

 

I still think it can work, although it would take a rebuilding time and some effort.

[goc]

I mean it COULD be but I don't really see why it HAS to be. If you want it to be the most important thing in the company then you're essentially stuck having to keep the title on the top guy at all times. So in WWE you could only really have Cena or Brock as champion.

 

I like the way Bill Watts would book the North American title. It was always important but it wasn't always the main event program unless the very top guys were involved.

[Laz]

It's absolutely possible. Wrestling is a fictional narrative and the titles, essentially, are macguffins. They exist to propel the stories and are as important as the promotion makes them out to be.

 

For recent examples, PWG has it so that the World and Tag titles are both very important to their shows, with Roderick Strong practically murdering Kyle O'Reily last year to get the World title that had eluded him for years and every team that took the Tag belts off the Young Bucks was then treated as immensely important. Currently, local indy XWA has it's title in the thick of its big current angle (a feud with ROH) and its importance has increased because the players surrounding it treat it as something important.

 

It doesn't need to be the 100% focus, since the best shows are always ensemble pieces with multiple stories going on at once, but it should always be held in high regard as the apex achievement. After all, why would Rocky Balboa even care about Apollo Creed if Creed wasn't the champ?

[RocketCrypt]

In an ideal scenario the motivation for most wrestlers should be some variation of either being the best at what they do, or to make as much money as they can, or both, and the title holds the key to all of these motivations.

 

That's not to say they can't get sidetracked by personal issues with another wrestler. Obviously you need variation and not everyone can be challenging for the title at the same time.

 

For me, there's nothing worse than a wrestler openly stating they want to "steal the show" or "have the best match". In a kayfabe environment, that's complete nonsense.

[Loss]

I mean it COULD be but I don't really see why it HAS to be. If you want it to be the most important thing in the company then you're essentially stuck having to keep the title on the top guy at all times. So in WWE you could only really have Cena or Brock as champion.

 

The world title would mean so much more if only guys at that level held it.

[goc]

 

I mean it COULD be but I don't really see why it HAS to be. If you want it to be the most important thing in the company then you're essentially stuck having to keep the title on the top guy at all times. So in WWE you could only really have Cena or Brock as champion.

 

The world title would mean so much more if only guys at that level held it.

 

It would also be pretty boring and stale. How many guys in WWE are at that level? Cena, Lesnar and who? Orton?

[Loss]

Right now? No one. It would be awesome to build up more people to that level and never do televised defenses. (Actually, they don't do very many now anyway, so good on them.) Call it boring or stale or whatever -- I would have been so happy if WM ended with Brock winning clean and going home for a few months. But I think back to the 1980s, and Hogan was able to have very successful feuds even when no one thought his opponent was going to take the title. Somewhere along the way, the idea became that in order to get a title match over, you have to convince the people that the challenger has a shot. I don't think there's anything wrong with that and it's probably right in many cases, but I'm not sure that's always necessary.

 

I think the title started meaning less when guys started getting it as recognition of their work ethic. It's a nice sentiment, but it hasn't meant as much since guys like Angle and Jericho started holding the title as upper midcarders. In most cases, attempts to elevate a guy through a championship win haven't worked. Fans didn't really accept Del Rio or Swagger at that level, and Punk wasn't at that level until 2011 either. To me, you create fan demand then put the title on a guy instead of giving it to a guy in an attempt to get him over the top.

[WingedEagle]

 

 

I mean it COULD be but I don't really see why it HAS to be. If you want it to be the most important thing in the company then you're essentially stuck having to keep the title on the top guy at all times. So in WWE you could only really have Cena or Brock as champion.

 

The world title would mean so much more if only guys at that level held it.

 

It would also be pretty boring and stale. How many guys in WWE are at that level? Cena, Lesnar and who? Orton?

 

 

I think the idea is then they'd be forced to book and push guys so that they're cemented at that level with a title win, rather than hoping the title establishes someone you've had driving along a road with staggered lights in the run to the belt.

 

Not everyone can be Cena or Lesnar. They're generational talents in different ways. But look at Ryback. There is nothing about him that ever screamed money except an unbeaten streak where he looked like a boss for a few months. That's it. You apply that formula to almost anyone and you'll have done a better job setting someone up to at least credibly fill one half of a main event than anything that's been done with Rollins, Ambrose, Wyatt, etc.

[JerryvonKramer]

The idea of elevating the title means you can put a guys like Dory Funk Jr. or Bob Backlund as champion, who have little obvious charisma and use them as special attractions or drawing cards.

 

Plus another main event.

 

Plus another special attraction.

 

And that's a stacked card.

 

But in the presentation, you must make the title seem like the biggest deal, even in cases (see Bruno vs. Larry Z in 1980) where something else is really drawing the house.

[kjh]

I think the Money In The Bank gimmick has done a lot to devalue the World championships, because:

 

(a) It's led to a lot of champions that backdoored their way into holding the title, rather than winning it straight up in a match;

( Once someone gets the briefcase, you're virtually locked into giving them the title, even if the timing is wrong, they're not ready for it, because otherwise you bury the person who couldn't win the belt with the odds stacked in his favour (see Damian Sandow).

[goc]

I really do hate MITB and think it's time to get rid of it. It was a cool concept for the first few years but it's just totally played out now and the guy with the briefcase almost always looks like shit in the lead up to the cash in now since I guess the idea is "well we can make him the champ whenever so it doesn't matter how many times we beat him before then"?

[Petey]

I feel like MITB is one of their more successful non-WM/RR shows, so I doubt it's going anywhere. I do agree that I think it negatively impacts the World Title. I'd rather MITB essentially be handled the way it was booked with RVD/Cena. Wrestler challenges Champion to match at later date. That way if the challenger loses, he doesn't come off necessarily looking like a scrub and you're not forced to always have a title change.

[Parties]

This may be obvious, but part of valuing the world title is talking about a bunch of sports-like stuff that Vince probably hates and doesn't want discussed on TV at all. On modern WWE TV, no one but Heyman really hits upon why you'd even want a world title. From a kayfabe perspective, your world champion:

• Is the highest paid worker in the company. You want that title because you want that money, whether you're Ric Flair in a limo or Stan Hansen feeding a big fat wife and nine kids. Heyman occasionally hinted at this notion when Brock was champ, but it was rarely played up. So much of celeb status (esp. in America) is about viewers coveting the wealth of big stars, whether you're Lebron, Jay-Z, or a Kardashian.

• Has more political pull with the booker than anyone else, but still not enough to bully around authority figures without consequences. The Vince-Austin dynamic worked because they were stuck with each other. Flair talked a lot of trash on TV about Crockett, but in the end knew that he was the boss. Watts ran Mid-South, but Watts treated heel and face champions with a modicum of respect. Likewise, everyone cowered to Grizzly Smith. We kinda see this in the current iteration of Rollins as jewel of the Authority, but it's so poorly done for all the reasons I've discussed ad nauseum.

• Receives preferential treatment with regard to travel, accommodations, sponsorship, etc. You know, like an actual celebrity. We never see world champions enjoying the good life nowadays, unless they're naturally flashy guys like Batista. Rollins wears his same stupid gear everywhere he goes. Brock's whole character is that he's in this because he likes hurting people, likes winning, and then wants to go home and hunt. He cares nothing about perception, whereas someone like Rollins probably should be wearing suits when cutting promos, or at least athletic gear that's expensive and on trend.

• Is recognized by both themselves and their peers as the best talent going: the measuring stick. Great athletes in all organizations want to be champions not merely for the fame and money, but because they are so competitive and so eager to be great that they vie for the opportunity to be the objective best in their field. "For love of the game".

• Everyone should be jockeying for a match with them! Or at least working their way up the ranks. I suspect part of why we never hear guys cut promos of this nature is that Vince is of late obsessed with not wanting anyone to “whine”, which he equates with publicly expressing any kind of desire or ambition within one's career. And because he has so little faith or interest in so much of the roster that it would never occur to him that of their characters should so any fortitude or aspiration. I'm not saying Zack Ryder should be calling himself the next world champion, but there's no harm in your top babyfaces taking pride in themselves, while simultaneously acknowledging that Rollins is the man to beat because he's that damn good.

• A world title (or even simply the promotion's top title) can't mean as much in a post-touring champ world. Rollins didn't even go to Japan for that Beast in the East show, and you come away from an event like that realizing how much bigger Brock is than the belt right now. You need to reinstill that aura. Honestly if the belt was only defended a few times a year on PPV, with people having to go to house shows to see the touring title match, that'd be a pretty badass deal.

[Bierschwale]

The ridiculous Rollins segment from last week's RAW with him buying J&J the Caddy and the Apple watches and the Hawaiian vacation for Kane was supposed to be "Look at me, I'm the champ, I'm rich now!". It's almost as if Seth Rollins is a shitty promo.

[Loss]

Has Rollins defended the title on Raw at all since winning it? I was just thinking about that and can recall non-title matches, but no title defenses. Most weeks, he's also in bad skits instead of wrestling.

[goc]

I can't really recall any, but I'm sure he's had at least a few. But him not defending the title on TV regularly hasn't made the belt feel more special because he's still totally over exposed and on the show WAY too much.

[Grimmas]

All those non title matches aren't helping the title either.

[goc]

And he's in the same boring tag matches seemingly every week with Kane teaming against Ambrose & Reigns.

[Bierschwale]

Has Rollins defended the title on Raw at all since winning it? I was just thinking about that and can recall non-title matches, but no title defenses. Most weeks, he's also in bad skits instead of wrestling.

 

The most recent free TV title match was Bryan-HHH the night after WM XXX, which never actually took place because of the Shield turn. The last RAW match for a World title was Sandow's failed cash-in on Cena for the WHC. Having looked it up, the last for the WWE title was Punk-Ryback in January 2013.

[Laz]

That part doesn't bother me because it then, theoretically, makes the PPVs/Network specials more important simply by the title being on the line. It doesn't feel this way, though, because the entire show is a television program about what television writers feel a wrestling show looks like instead of being a wrestling show on TV. It's why ROH and LU feel so different (in addition to production, runtime, and match quality).

[El-P]

You mean the championship ?

[goc]

 

Has Rollins defended the title on Raw at all since winning it? I was just thinking about that and can recall non-title matches, but no title defenses. Most weeks, he's also in bad skits instead of wrestling.

 

The most recent free TV title match was Bryan-HHH the night after WM XXX, which never actually took place because of the Shield turn. The last RAW match for a World title was Sandow's failed cash-in on Cena for the WHC. Having looked it up, the last for the WWE title was Punk-Ryback in January 2013.

 

I was saying a few weeks ago that I thought they should do a title change on Raw to spark interest. Reading this only makes me double down on that.

[Strummer]

Oddly enough I think Rollins comes across much better on SD than on Raw. The promo he cut before MITB with Ambrose was fantastic but no one talked about it because it was on Smackdown. I don't think he's a fantastic talker or anything but he comes across much better on the taped show. And for whatever reason his matches get more time there than on Raw. Ryback is another who comes off much better on Smackdown than Raw IMO. Some people get freaked out by the live aspect and I think Rollins might be one of them

[Bierschwale]

 

 

Has Rollins defended the title on Raw at all since winning it? I was just thinking about that and can recall non-title matches, but no title defenses. Most weeks, he's also in bad skits instead of wrestling.

 

The most recent free TV title match was Bryan-HHH the night after WM XXX, which never actually took place because of the Shield turn. The last RAW match for a World title was Sandow's failed cash-in on Cena for the WHC. Having looked it up, the last for the WWE title was Punk-Ryback in January 2013.

 

I was saying a few weeks ago that I thought they should do a title change on Raw to spark interest. Reading this only makes me double down on that.

 

Agreed. You don't need a World title match every other week, but once in a while, say every four months? Far from a bad thing.

 

Even PPV title matches have become stupidly routine. The last meaningful WWE title change at a B-tier PPV was really Punk at MITB 2011. Everything else has been hot potato stuff like Del Rio's wins/the Bryan-Orton stretch, or at a major.

[artDDP]

The title absolutely should be the single most important thing in modern wrestling. If anyone on a major stage (currently only WWE) had the patience to invest in long-term title chase storylines and could abandon the overarching heel authority figure storyline they've been running for almost twenty years it could happen.

 

Unfortunately, modern wrestling (again, especially WWE) is so focused on minute-by-minute numbers that any dip is cause for panic.