No WWE Championship Matches Until Next Year?

[Jack-Hammer]

According to a story at wrestlinginc.com, Brock Lesnar isn't scheduled for any Raw or ppv appearances through the end of 2014. The article notes that Lesnar's other appearances this year were advertised months in advance. Lesnar's worked 4 ppvs this year, he's usually worked 3 in previous years. Aside from John Cena at this particular point, there's not really a marquee program for Lesnar right. Coupled with his big price tag, it's possible that Lesnar might not defend the title until the Royal Rumble in 2015.

Personally, I have to say that I'm not thrilled about this. There are still a few months left in 2014 and the WWE World Heavyweight Champion, IF this report turns out to be accurate, is gonna be MIA until it's time to start building the Royal Rumble. It's one thing to have a champion only pop up every so often, but I think this is definitely too much. On the other hand, maybe it'll give the Royal Rumble a little bit of an extra pop with the champ being gone for so long.

 

[laodaron]

I'm a huge fan of the attitude era style booking where you almost only saw the title defenses on ppvs. That being said, the champ has to be there, Paul Heyman or not, to spark the interest in the fights.

I can't imagine a scenario that makes sense in which Brock sits in Iowa until the Rumble, EXCEPT, they are waiting for Daniel Bryan to return and take it off of him, which would be terrible booking.

 

[WBL]

This is what made me sick about The Rock holding the WWE title the final time he did. This is supposed to be the richest prize in all of professional wrestling, and you can't even get a shot at it for months? You aren't even going to see it for months? It almost makes Lesnar seem like a coward, which we know isn't the case.

If we don't see Lesnar or the WWE title for the next few months, all this epic momentum he's built is going to deflate, regardless of how epic Paul Heyman is on the mic. And once again, just like when Punk held the title throughout his 400+ day reign, it'll be another way for the show to focus on Cena without putting him in the title picture.

 

[bk555]

On a surface level this sounds outrageous, I know. Going two or three PPV's without a WWE Title match does seem a little ridiculous.

BUT, I can't help but shake the feeling that there is in fact nothing out there for a guy like Lesnar in the WWE currently. I know people were talking about Reigns but now he's hurt, I think it's much too early to give Ambrose a title match or even any sort of match against Lesnar and it would not make logical sense to put Rollins against him even if the storyline would match it. And I know no one wants to see John Cena/Lesnar again.

What the WWE can do to salvage this situation is turn Randy Orton face and have him defy the authority. Although, if they did that I think the next few months would theoretically be too soon to give him a title match so soon into a hypothetical face run.

It sounds strange, but it is dire for WWE with faces so I don't think you should just bring Lesnar in to fight just because you want him to fight. Keep in mind his per show charge, WWE won't want to waste his appearances.

Also, keeping him out of the main events doesn't mean you have to keep him out of sight completely. Heyman will definitely be around no doubt and occasionally, we could see Lesnar appearances just to "remind the crowd of his dominance" or some garbage like that.

Believe it or not, if this the way WWE is going then I think I am sort of on their side although I do not love it.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Aside from John Cena at this particular point, there's not really a marquee program for Lesnar right.

Makes you wonder what ol' Vince is thinking, huh? Can you imagine if he's telling the employees that Brock might as well take the title into hibernation because there's no one fit to fight him, anyway? Yikes!

Still, if this is the company's plan, you have to wonder what their goal is. Plainly, they're reticent about keeping the belt around Cena's waist, and we can speculate all we like about why that might be. If WWE needs someone to keep it warm for Daniel Bryan or Roman Reigns, then Cena would be the logical choice.....even though the idea of having Champ Cena as a stopgap measure curdles the blood; he's the top gun, if he's to be on top, it should be because he's top gun. No apologies needed, thank you.

Don't blame Brock Lesnar, either. He's contractually bound to work only when he has to work.... he has nothing to do with storylines....and probably has even less interest in them.

We're at a unique juncture in WWE history, folks.....in a "sport" that loves championship matches......and a champion who's not around, not because of injury or illness, but because that's how management has designed it.

Makes me think of Major League Baseball voting for the the 2014 Most Valuable Player.....and choosing Mickey Mantle.

 

[CM Steel]

Vince McMahon must like losing $$$$$. I can't believe that McMahon is going along with all this with Brock Lesner's part-time schedule. I guess your really not a star in the WWE if your not a part-time. And in 2015 around Wrestlemania time fans are really going to see what I'm talking about with the Batista farewell tour. Brock Lesner is holding the WWE championship hostage for the next three months and the McMahon's (plus Triple H) can't be anything but happy about it. This all makes me sad to see ans witness. Bad business Vinnie Mac, bad business!

 

[d_henderson1810]

What makes it worse is that there is only one major title now.

If they still had both the WWE and World Title, then you could have title missing in action, and have the other champion main event the PPV every month. Then they could do this, (although still not ideal), but at least there would still be a title defense main eventing the PPV every month.

 

[TheICChampion]

So what does this mean, exactly? That we're going to see John Cena vs. Randy Orton at every RAW and PPV in some capacity until Lesnar comes back? On the one hand, with Lesnar MIA it gives the WWE a chance to try and re-build the mid card, tag team and diva's titles, but whether or not they capitalize is yet to be seen. But if your champion is supposed to be seen at every opportunity and used to promote and represent the company, then what the heck is Vinnie Mac thinking? I don't mind if the title isn't always on the line, but if we never even see the guy who's holding it then it kind of makes it pointless, doesn't it?

 

[Starkist]

It is what it is. Why does the champion have to be there every night? If he is we'll complain and if he isn't guess what, we'll complain. Either way it won't stop my ADHD watching of Raw.

 

[Headman]

I'm a huge fan of the attitude era style booking where you almost only saw the title defenses on ppvs. That being said, the champ has to be there, Paul Heyman or not, to spark the interest in the fights.

I can't imagine a scenario that makes sense in which Brock sits in Iowa until the Rumble, EXCEPT, they are waiting for Daniel Bryan to return and take it off of him, which would be terrible booking.

say whaaa??? The attitude era had more title changes on regular television than any other era. Hell, it had more title changes period than any other era. With that said, pre- attitude era norms would have seen the title defended almost exclusively on ppv. Excluding house show defenses of course. But I get your point. Before Bret Hart and his "Fighting champion" storyline where he'd defend the title against someone on tv every week title matches were rare. Let's look at it this way. In 1991 Hogan won the title from Sgt Slaughter. He did not defend the title at Summer Slam. He then lost the title to the Undertaker at Survivor series and won it back to days later at This Tuesday In Texas. The title would then be vacant until the Royal Rumble. That's three televised championship matches featuring Hulk Hogan in an entire year. People will argue that this was before the day of monthly ppvs and that you need title matches to sell the ppv. That may or may not be true, but the reality is the day of selling individual ppvs is over. Now they're selling six month subscriptions. The WWE should take advantage of the new format by slowing down the pace of their storylines and using certain talent less frequently to make them real attractions. Brock Lesnar is an attraction and using him to destroy random opponents won't do him or the title any good.

 

[No Count Pup]

I don't get the point of a Lesnar title reign.

If he's not wrestling on the WWE Network monthly, how does his reign increase subscription numbers? The WWE Championship is the most important "Superstar", even bigger than the wrestlers. Without it, WWE programming is just a stream of aimless storylines. What's the chase? Why should we care without a world title?

WWE could have accomplished Lesnar vs. ??? for the title at WrestleMania by having Lesnar win the strap at the Royal Rumble. I understand WWE struggling with viewership, merchandise, and live event sales. That is in the hands of their customers. But picking the champion and keeping the belt on TV? That is in WWE's control. WWE creates its own problems. They deserve the fan apathy they get in the next few months.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

I'm completely okay with this.

Look, suppose the WWE decides to cough up the money for 2 more PPVs and has Lesnar defend the title against Orton at Survivor Series and Ambrose at TLC.

Would anyone think that either man had a legitimate chance of winning the title? My guess is no. To which, I ask...what does it matter then if Lesnar defends the title if the Lesnar keeping the belt until WrestleMania is nearly a forgone conclusion?

Is there a model for this kind of champion out there somewhere? Well, yeah...in real sports. Boxing, MMA, etc.

Has the WWE already made that kind of comparison? Yep. Heyman did it.

So would WWE programming be so much worse off if week after week, the focus was on contenders fighting to get an extremely rare title shot?

 

[ShatteredDreamsProduction]

Only way I can see WWE getting round this is to either start a tournament for a new number 1 contender. As Cena seems to have had his chance and gone onto a new feud.

Or alternatively bust out the old "30 day" rule. Where claim Brock has to defend it or he gets stripped of the title. Where Heyman can come out and say if WWE want their title back. They are more than welcome to go take it from Brock. Etc etc. start a feud between the authority and Brock. Leading up to HHH vs Brock.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

I don't mind him not defending it at Hell In A Cell.

There's literally no one on the roster who is worthy of a shot, unless you want to see him squash Big Show or Mark Henry.

I don't believe this though, just because they haven't advertised him yet doesn't mean they won't. I'm betting he shows up for Survivor Series (which isn't until November, so there's plenty of time). By then hopefully they have either Daniel Bryan or Randy Orton turning face lined up to face him.

Or maybe WWE goes full UFC and creates an "interim" champion until the Rumble.

 

[Trance Metaphor]

This really is a nonsensical move because as much as it seems like there aren't any guys that could beat Brock Lesnar for the WWE World Heavyweight Championship, why not just have some contenders for the title? It's not like they have to win. I'd rather just see Brock Lesnar at least defend the title successfully multiple times against guys he hasn't faced before in present time (ex. Sheamus, Cesaro, Randy Orton, etc). I especially want this because Lesnar's first WWE World title defence against John Cena ended like shit with Cena winning by DQ. That's just dumb.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

I don't have a big problem with this.

As long as Orton is a heel, John Cena is the only one on the entire WWE roster, who can face Lesnar as a formidable challenger. Reigns is out with an injury, Bryan is out with an injury, Lesnar repeatedly humiliated Mark Henry earlier this year, and Lesnar annihilated Big Show at the Royal Rumble. Of course, if Orton is a face by the time 2015 rolls around, I can see WWE going with a one-off match at the Rumble. Of course, Orton loses, but Orton is a fresh choice for a temporary solution until Wrestlemania.

I understand the decision to go with a DQ at Night Of Champions, because it leaves the door open for another rematch between Cena and Lesnar. Cena has a legit case to go after Lesnar again, but you're taking a chance of a burn out with the fans, if you do Cena VS Lesnar at three pay per views in a row.

You're tip-toeing on a tedious line with three consecutive Cena VS Lesnar matches, and if WWE decides to go with a third match, 2015 works better, because waiting until the Rumble gives the Cena/Lesnar feud some much needed breathing room. After that, Lesnar goes into the Chamber with a mix of new challengers to keep things fresh, and you move on to Wrestlemania, where Lesnar faces the Rumble winner.

 

[Mudlup50]

Few thoughts, they could turn Orton face next week and as someone mentioned, there needs to be time to build him as a contender so he can fight Lesnar at TLC. Idea for PPV's leading to Wrestlemania
HiaC: Cena v Ambrose v Rollins or Ambrose v Rollins or Cena v Rollins or if Orton turns face by then, Orton v Rollins
SS: Traditional Tag Match for the Main Event, no need for Lesnar there at all
TLC: Orton v Lesnar or Dean v Seth or Trips v Lesnar or Cena v Lesnar(the finale)
RR: The Rumble main events, unclear winner or Bryan or Reigns or Cena
EC: Rumble "winners" battle it out or Chamber if Lesnar agrees to it

Of course, it's not like we won't see Lesnar again till Rumble worst case, Cena pushes Heyman and Lesnar shows up...so just get Ambrose to slime Heyman or irish whip him and bam, Lesnar is there

I don't dislike this, just so long as we fade Cena into the background a bit...this is completely possible in my eyes and it's the hole WWE has dug themselves into, so let's just enjoy the other parts of the show and hope for the best

 

[pepentorresHHH]

I do have a problem with this.

This is not the UFC where we see title defenses every few months. This is WWE we need to see the champion often. Maybe not every week but at least every month. They love to throw that 30 day title defense rule whenever is convenient right? They might as well left the title on bryan if you cane defend twice in 2 months then take a 4 month break.....

Brock Lesnar brings legitimacy to the WWE Championship I get that but part timers should only hold the title for short periods of time because they can't be there often. The Rock was champ and he defended his belt on 2 ppvs until he lost it. He wasn't there every week but for as long as he was champ the title was defended on every PPV which is why I'm at least thankful his reign was kept short.

Brock Lesnar as a champion is impressive but i was perfectly ok with him beating Cena at NOC and then have Rollins bash his head in a bunch of time with the briefcase and then pin him for the belt.

I don't need him to appear at Hell in a Cell but at least let him appear at SS since its still one of the big 4 and then skip TLC.

 

[Dagger Dias]

There is absolutely no way that we will not have World Heavyweight Championship matches at the upcoming PPV's. WWE have made some stupid decisions over the years, but this would be one of the worst if they did it. Hell In A Cell is normally one of the worst shows of the year. Without a World Heavyweight Championship match on the card, name ONE reason why anyone should care about that show at all. Just one. Seriously. Is it because of the namesake gimmick? Not enough for me and I doubt I am alone in that opinion. The Hell In A Cell matches at the Hell In A Cell PPV tend to be lazily booked, and have rarely been memorable.

If Lesnar is the World Heavyweight Champion by Hell In A Cell, he needs to defend the title. Period. If that is the only time he shows up onscreen this entire PPV cycle, that's fine. He's still defending the belt. An edition of ANY PPV without a World Heavyweight Championship match is simply unacceptable. What would the main event be? Number one contendership for the World Heavyweight Championship? Random non-title filler that ultimately doesn't matter? Would one of the midcard titles close the show? Hell In A Cell may be in for its weakest edition ever this year. The same can be potentially said for TLC if there's no World Heavyweight Championship match there either. I love the TLC brand and the gimmicks it is home to, but without a match where the top prize is on the line.... What's the point?

Then we have Survivor Series. If they did nothing but traditional Survivor Series elimination matches, it could still be worth watching. However, I'd still want a World Heavyweight Championship match on there. A PPV card is incomplete without one. The roster is large enough to have several traditional Survivor Series matches for the male wrestlers, one for the divas, and still have a World Heavyweight Championship match close the show. An incomplete Survivor Series without a World Heavyweight Championship match sounds horrible, but unlike Hell In A Cell, I would probably still watch it in the end. I'm always nostalgic for those traditional elimination matches.

Not having World Heavyweight Championship matches would be a gargantuan mistake. The whole point of being a wrestler, within kayfabe, should be to desire to be a World Champion. If there's no world title matches what are they even wrestling for? It feels like it would defeat the purpose if the top prize is not available to be won. The wrestler who holds a World Championship should be forced to somehow defend it once a month without any argument or else he gets the belt taken away from him and is no longer recognized as the World Heavyweight Champion. If Lesnar cannot work even one appearance per month, he should not be the champion. It is that simple. We have a Money In the Bank briefcase that can still be cashed in. Have Seth cash in on Lesnar, now you have someone who can work a full schedule as the World Heavyweight Champion. Problem solved. I'd like to hope that WWE is smart enough to NOT deprive the fans of world title matches on PPV's.

 

[Slash-LN]

I guess this is one of those times the 30 day rule will be ignored. Despite the fact that Bryan had to give the title up for that reason. Because we aren't supposed to remember that.

Anyway I don't care right now if the title is defended on the next few pay per views or not.

If WWE can put on a quality show with the roster they have then I'm all for that.

 

[Navi]

Not having World Heavyweight Championship matches would be a gargantuan mistake. The whole point of being a wrestler, within kayfabe, should be to desire to be a World Champion. If there's no world title matches what are they even wrestling for? It feels like it would defeat the purpose if the top prize is not available to be won. The wrestler who holds a World Championship should be forced to somehow defend it once a month without any argument or else he gets the belt taken away from him and is no longer recognized as the World Heavyweight Champion. If Lesnar cannot work even one appearance per month, he should not be the champion. It is that simple. We have a Money In the Bank briefcase that can still be cashed in. Have Seth cash in on Lesnar, now you have someone who can work a full schedule as the World Heavyweight Champion. Problem solved. I'd like to hope that WWE is smart enough to NOT deprive the fans of world title matches on PPV's.

I couldn't agree more. Having Lesnar sit at home with the belt is ludicrous to say the least. There are injuries yes, but there players on the roster that could be used in different ways to get the title off Lesnar.

Let's say the Authority calls Heyman out and tells him that if Lesnar doesn't appear at Survivor Series, he'll be stripped of the title like Daniel Bryan was. In other words use the 30 day clause against him.

Lesnar shows up and the match is Lesnar v Orton. Orton's been pissing HHH off lately with his inability to take care of Ambrose and the infighting with Rollins. Don't forget that Orton still has a rematch clause from Mania. The match starts, and Orton, who would be a suitable candidate to take on Lesnar, and just when it looks like one is going to win, Rollins runs out and cashes in the MITB. Instant Orton face turn, and great heel heat on Rollins.

This provides the WWE with a champion who is not only available, but is hated by three of the top faces, Cena, Reigns and Ambrose. I haven't figured out what Lesnar would do, but you would at least have a champion ready to fight not only on TV but at the remaining PPV's.

 

[Michael J. Fox]

Have Lesnar defend the title in the Rumble. The selling point can be the whole roster taking him on since no wrestler has that spot by themselves.

 

[L@RISANO]

I couldn't agree more. Having Lesnar sit at home with the belt is ludicrous to say the least. There are injuries yes, but there players on the roster that could be used in different ways to get the title off Lesnar.

Let's say the Authority calls Heyman out and tells him that if Lesnar doesn't appear at Survivor Series, he'll be stripped of the title like Daniel Bryan was. In other words use the 30 day clause against him.

Lesnar shows up and the match is Lesnar v Orton. Orton's been pissing HHH off lately with his inability to take care of Ambrose and the infighting with Rollins. Don't forget that Orton still has a rematch clause from Mania. The match starts, and Orton, who would be a suitable candidate to take on Lesnar, and just when it looks like one is going to win, Rollins runs out and cashes in the MITB. Instant Orton face turn, and great heel heat on Rollins.

This provides the WWE with a champion who is not only available, but is hated by three of the top faces, Cena, Reigns and Ambrose. I haven't figured out what Lesnar would do, but you would at least have a champion ready to fight not only on TV but at the remaining PPV's.

I usually agree with most of your posts, but this time I have to disagree.


Why would you mess up the Best booking of a Top Heel in a long time for a cash-in by a guy who isn't yet ready to carry the championship and is actually in a hot feud that is unfinished?


I think the booking of Brock as an "Invincible Top Heel" and Seth Rollins as "Mr.Money in the Bank" can be easily dragged on until Wrestlemania 31, with the ending results of Brock being "conquered" and Seth "cashing in" being much more satisfying than if it was rushed because of "not having an Active Champion".


That said; I think the injuries to both Daniel Bryan and Roman Reigns and subsequently the lack of Top Main Event talent have left the WWE Creative in a sort of confused state as to what direction to take moving forward.

I don't think they want to rush the "defeat" of Brock Lesnar just like that, not when his booking has so much potential if it can be dragged on until Mania 31...

 

[Aquaman6686]

This is exactly why unifying the titles was a huge error. It wouldn't matter if the WWE Champion was a prima donna who only wrestles 5 times a year, because we'd still have the World Heavyweight Champion on the product. Now there's tons of top talent sitting around with nothing to do. WWE NEEDS to bring back the World Heavyweight Championship.

 

[MERPER]

This is a joke. I mean, the guy doesn't have to defend it at every PPV or be at every RAW but you are going to go over 3 months at least with not a single match for the top belt in the business?

And, not that WWE thinks like this cause it would be too much of a brain for everyone... but you strip Daniel Bryan of the belt cause he can't compete and be a "fighting champion" only to put it on a guy who isn't a fighting champion anyways???

Way to anger your fan base even more than they already are by the completely crap product.

Oh yeah, and this would also mean not a single chance for Rollins to use the money in the bank contract in all this time, thus taking away from any suspense or surprise of that happening.