No WWE Championship Matches Until Next Year?

[Rusty]

In a time where the only storyline that usually matters is the one involving the WWE Title, yeah it's a pretty fuckin' big deal.

If this rumour is correct, well I can't help but think that.... I told you so. I knew from the start this Lesnar title reign is going to become boring if he is not appearing as often as the champion should. And don't give me that bullshit about the champion not being around except for pay pay views, maybe 20 years ago that was relevant, but the wrestling world has evolved since then. Not to mention we are the "now" generation, we demand the champion to appear, we demand title matches, and we demand superstars get the opportunity to compete for the richest prize in sports entertainment.

I think someone also stated that if WWE has no plans for Lesnar for the rest of the year, what does that say about the rest of the roster? That apart from John Cena, nobody else is worthy of challenging the champion? If that's true, then why bother watching the damn show until the Royal Rumble. That is not at all, a smart business decision by any means.

You know what else contributed to this potential disaster, unifying the freaking world titles! Sure, people say the WWE has not got enough talent for 2 world titles, but I think it's been a flop so far. At least the WWE tried hyping two major storylines instead of one back then, not to mention Smackdown was also a semi-relevant program, unlike it is now. AND this whole Brock Lesnar MIA thing wouldn't be as big of an issue, since the World Heavyweight Championship can still be defended in the main event.

Maybe if the other storylines were half interesting this wouldn't even be a topic we'd be discussing, but you know it's going to suck and anyone that offers a contrasting opinion is naive.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

WWE needs desperately to build new top tier talent. Here's why:

John Cena is past his prime, and his character is being stretched to its max. WWE has to realize this, despite Cena constantly being the top merchandise seller.

Randy Orton is a solid talent to have main eventing. But he's unreliable outside the ring and on the mic. Plus, he's not a young guy anymore. He's still got plenty of good years left, but not as many as he did 5-10 years ago.

Daniel Bryan is a fan favorite and makes for some great storylines. But the E has got to be worried about his health issues going forward. The same applies to Dolph Ziggler and Bad News Barrett.

Cessaro...not even sure what to say here. This guy is a stud in the ring. But to me, he's terrible on the mic. WWE doesn't seem to know what to do with him and it doesn't seem like he'll ever be given many opportunities as a main event guy.

Roman Reigns....he's got the look, but that's about it. I don't mind his ring work, but you just don't see good story telling from him. Not much of a move set, bad on the mic. He'll likely be thrust into the M.E. for many years. But I'm not sure he'll win over the coveted IWC.

Seth Rollins....This guy has a ton of potential to be an "it factor" kind of guy. We'll see how he's used going forward. Dean Ambrose falls into the same category. But are either of these guys the kind of guys who can be a "face" of the WWE? I'm not so sure that the main stream media will paste their faces everywhere like Cena/Austin/Rock/Hogan.

Rusev...I love this guy as a heel. He's a beast. Has great emotion in the ring and his facial expressions are priceless. But again...ultimate bad guy...not the face of a company.

Sheamus...no! I like the character more as a heel. He can move, big, strong, and menacing. But he's a character for the kids as a face. Plus, he's 36 years old. Not enough going for him.

Bray Wyatt....What happened to this guy? Incredibly charasmatic. Works well in the ring and on the mic. But the arrow is starting to point down. Seems like WWE dropped the ball with him.

After that....who do you have? There are a lot of great young prospects coming up to compliment Ambrose/Reigns/Rollins. But who's gonna be the next face?

Having Brock Lesnar off TV/PPV kind of sucks. But at the same time...this gives WWE brass an opportunity to put other guys in the main event to see who has the potential to be that next guy. And whoever knocks off Lesnar as champ, will get a HUGE push. They'll bring the belt on Raw and Smackdown and it'll be like new again.

Unless WWE screws it up and makes the bunny the next champ, then we're all screwed.

 

[resignedknight]

There's also a more general point that nobody has made. Isn't anybody else just excited to see what happens when they break the format and try something different? How many months and years have we sat through booking where there's a title match at a PPV, and then one of like 3 things happens to introduce a new feud the next night on Raw. They go through the motions of a heel sneak attack, some nonsense like an arm wrestling match where the heel cheats, this happens for a few weeks. Then there's a contract signing on Raw before the title match happens at the PPV. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

This forces them to do something new, and I really think breaking that format is the best way to be a little unpredictable. Unpredictable environments may actually give guys some room to shine, seem a little different, and actually get over.

I certainly can't guarantee it, but I think there's a better chance than than there's been. I'm interested to see how it plays out, so I'll be watching.

 

[sanefan_har]

The Main Problem is the lack of legitimate challengers for the title(unless you push forward Show and Henry for repeat squash bouts).

I say have Brock vs Orton at Survivor Series, whilst Cena/Ambrose/Rollins continue their feud. Then build towards Cena-Lesnar 3 for the Royal Rumble, then onto Mania, where hopefully there will be the likes of Reigns and Bryan added to the mix of possible challengers.

The thing is, if they had let Cena put a good showing and still lose cleanly to Brock Lesnar at Night of Champions, there would've (speculations running high here) been a lot more emphasis on the No.1 Contender slot.

Bad booking over the years has cost the WWE dearly. Now while I don't want to bash Cena, I'm really disappointed with the way the WWE have built up other superstars up until the middle of 2012. And that has led to the "It's Cena or we're doomed" mentality among backstage officials and Vince McMahon alike.

That's not to say Mr. Lesnar doesn't have other worthy challengers. Hell, Sheamus could drop a pipe bomb of sorts stating that he's a champion who fights every night and that he'd kick Brock Lesnar's arse all around the ring. Regardless of anything, he would be a breath of fresh air when challenging Lesnar.

I agree with your choice of Orton, but for the past 2 years he's seemed more like a prop-holder than anything else. That is until the planned face turn kicks in and we see a vicious Randy Orton.

I would have suggested Cesaro, but he's lost way too many matches since the Battle Royal at Wrestlemania.

Ziggler? Nope. I mean he's good, but he seems to be following the path of a slow heel turn.

Brock Lesnar could probably squash Kane at some Pay Per View, although I'm not sure of the impact it could have.

 

[Rusty]

There's also a more general point that nobody has made. Isn't anybody else just excited to see what happens when they break the format and try something different?

No, because it's WWE and the format will not be broken for as long as Vince is in charge of the final decisions.

How many months and years have we sat through booking where there's a title match at a PPV, and then one of like 3 things happens to introduce a new feud the next night on Raw.

There's probably only like 3 ways to introduce a new feud anyway.

They go through the motions of a heel sneak attack, some nonsense like an arm wrestling match where the heel cheats, this happens for a few weeks. Then there's a contract signing on Raw before the title match happens at the PPV. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

They try not to use the arm wrestling matches for the pay pay view matches that actually matter, in all fairness. Instead of having a heel sneak attack leading to a title match, they're going to have a heel sneak attack that leads to a pay per view match.... without the title on the line. Sounds like fun!

This forces them to do something new, and I really think breaking that format is the best way to be a little unpredictable. Unpredictable environments may actually give guys some room to shine, seem a little different, and actually get over.

Hornswoggle being introduced as Vince McMahon's illegitimate son was also an unpredictable move. It failed miserably.

I certainly can't guarantee it, but I think there's a better chance than than there's been. I'm interested to see how it plays out, so I'll be watching.

Glad someone will be watching, WWE needs a few people to purchase the network and pay per views since they won't appeal to many fans who actually want to see the title defended every pay per view, since you are after all, paying money to see the event.

 

[Navi]

I think someone also stated that if WWE has no plans for Lesnar for the rest of the year, what does that say about the rest of the roster? That apart from John Cena, nobody else is worthy of challenging the champion? If that's true, then why bother watching the damn show until the Royal Rumble. That is not at all, a smart business decision by any means.

That's exactly it and it's the elephant in the room that no one wants to admit. They have built Lesnar up to the extent that he is unstoppable, not even John Cena could bring the beast down.

Now it looks like they have no one on the roster who can go against him, and they aren't even going to try. The WWE would rather have Lesnar sit at home with the belt, while they goof around doing other shit. It's pathetic at best, and the fans are getting screwed over by it.

To hell with Lesnar building heat. If that's the only way he can build heat is to not compete, then there is something wrong. I would have thought he could build heat by tearing through the roster, but I guess not. It will be interesting to see how many subscriptions don't get renewed and the buy rates on PPV's that the title isn't being defended on.

 

[No Count Pup]

That's exactly it and it's the elephant in the room that no one wants to admit. They have built Lesnar up to the extent that he is unstoppable, not even John Cena could bring the beast down.

Now it looks like they have no one on the roster who can go against him, and they aren't even going to try. The WWE would rather have Lesnar sit at home with the belt, while they goof around doing other shit. It's pathetic at best, and the fans are getting screwed over by it.

To hell with Lesnar building heat. If that's the only way he can build heat is to not compete, then there is something wrong. I would have thought he could build heat by tearing through the roster, but I guess not. It will be interesting to see how many subscriptions don't get renewed and the buy rates on PPV's that the title isn't being defended on.

Funny that you mention renewals. I was wondering the same thing. I think $9.99 per month is a good deal. But I order the network for the monthly pay-per-views. If there is no world title on the line for three to four months, the channel loses its cache. If I had known the title wouldn't be defended for a majority of the shows, I wouldn't have renewed. I would have rather paid $20 for one or two select months.

It's not like I'm going to cancel my membership next year. I'll stick around. But there are plenty of other people who may feel ripped off. Those can become cancellations. Doesn't WWE see the risk? Do the shareholders see it?

I have been watching WWE for a few decades. I have never felt indifferent about a pay-per-view. There is something about the "anything can happen" atmosphere that gets me excited for the shows. Hell in a Cell 2014 is the first pay-per-view I have ever been apathetic about. If WWE can't even get people like me interested in their show, they are in trouble.

I am usually the biggest WWE defender around. I just about always give them the benefit of the doubt. But I can't defend them on Hell in a Cell or anything they are doing right now. Though it is not WCW 2000 bad, WWE is getting painful to watch. When the main event even feels like filler, you know something is amok.

 

[Franchize1990]

I don't know, it seems to me that we're making a major fuss over something that hasn't even been confirmed yet. There's been 0 matches made for HIAC so anything can still happen from now until October 26th. I'm pretty sure numerous of these "reports" get disproven on a consistent basis (CM Punk "100%" confirmed for a Raw in Chicago, Sting to make a live appearance on Raw that turned out to be about the virtual Sting, the IC and U.S Titles getting unified a long time ago). I can't really see Lesnar not defending the title until 2015 and the WWE give a valid reason as to why he won't defend it. And besides, it's not like he WWE didn't do a good job in putting over some talent the last time the WWE Title wasn't defended on a pay per view. So, in conclusion, like Aaron Rogers said in a press conference recently: R-E-L-A-X. At least until it becomes more apparent that they're keeping Lesnar off of tv for the rest of the year.

 

[TDFG]

I had a feeling that this would happen and I'm sure quite a few others thought the same.

It's a disaster, not having your Champion on TV every week can be gotten away with as long as there is promo's, build up and the appearance every other week by the Champ. Not having him wrestle at PPV's takes the biscuit.

How are WWE meant to sell PPV's if the Champ isn't there, the main event, for the number one contender isn't going to sell.

 

[mkw1962]

What can I say I was right all along this was bad for business letting a part time player take the title. I like Brock just like I liked Rock and Chris Jericho but none of them should have the World title. WWE has put themselves in a bad spot all the injuries, people not being there right now, and bad storylines plus give the title to a part timer this is bad. I know the title does not have to be defended every pay per view but it does help sell pay per view. They will be going thru some tough times with the ratings and viewers unless they change it up quick this is what I would do.
1. Strip Brock of the title
2. Randy Orton turn face
3. Have a tournament for the title
4. Have a battle royal for the title
5. Break up the authority
I know we got off the subject a little bit but in all Vince dropped the ball by letting Brock win.

 

[Terry Gyimah]

If this means no WWE World Heavyweight Championship defenses until next year then the next time Lesnar defends the title will be Royal Rumble 2015 and if that is the case then what does WWE do until then? Would The Authority strip Lesnar of the title? Could they really do that? Or how about as far as main events go, what will WWE do until then?

 

[lenguy]

I'm probably the only person who might actually be okay with this. I don't know why but for some reason I'm just having a hard time not caring. I totally understand why people would be upset, I get that. Not having a WWE title match for the rest of the year seems reasonably odd. Especially considering the frequency in which the title is defended, on average at least once a month. It seems so unordinary and strange that it is almost boarder line offensive.

I like to view things differently. While this kind of booking decision clearly seems odd, I like to see as kind of refreshing. The WWE title has been the focus on shows and has been heavily relied upon to sell PPV's and events. The title picture itself could be argued has been somewhat stagnant over the past number of years due to reoccurring faces. I think it will be nice to break away from that for a few months. It will be curious to see if WWE can still sell their PPVs without a WWE title match.

The way I see it, everybody is focused on the here and now. Will it affect WWE's PPV buys and arena attendances, maybe. Will they lose business and money over this period of time? it seems only reasonable they would. WWE will endure though. At the end of the day, they lose a bit of money but continue to exist. 10 years from now, will anybody even really care? Will anybody even remember? Its one moment in time, its one title reign, its one guy. I say, let them bend the rules for once. So long as it doesn't become a permanent thing then I'm willing to give them the slide. Its really up to history to decide whether or not this kind of decision was smart or not. We are just the once here to witness it. Like I said, in the grand scheme of things, I doubt this will ever really matter asides from this moment in time.

Brock Lesnar will be known as that one part time champion that didn't defend the title for a few months. That curious case that people can go look back upon and say to themselves. " Oh yeah, that was weird" Then move on. Somebody not defending the title for a few months is almost as odd as somebody holding the title for over 10 years. Regardless on how everyone here might feel, should it happen, then it happens, life goes on. I try not to dwell on it. No point really.

This is just how I view it. i doubt anybody will actually agree with me and that's fine. It just really doesn't bother me. I'm content. For better or for worse, if this is how things go down then we will just have to put up with it until its finished.

 

[No Count Pup]

I'm probably the only person who might actually be okay with this. I don't know why but for some reason I'm just having a hard time not caring. I totally understand why people would be upset, I get that. Not having a WWE title match for the rest of the year seems reasonably odd. Especially considering the frequency in which the title is defended, on average at least once a month. It seems so unordinary and strange that it is almost boarder line offensive.

It's cool that you aren't worried about it. And maybe WWE feels the same way. But by taking the WWE Title off the pay-per-views, they are throwing away too many shows. Shouldn't WWE focus on growing the Network at this juncture? Isn't this a bit too much garbage time?

I wonder how stakeholders feel about WWE phoning it in until January. It would have made more sense just prior to the Network launch, but not today.

 

[Navi]

It's cool that you aren't worried about it. And maybe WWE feels the same way. But by taking the WWE Title off the pay-per-views, they are throwing away too many shows. Shouldn't WWE focus on growing the Network at this juncture? Isn't this a bit too much garbage time?

I wonder how stakeholders feel about WWE phoning it in until January. It would have made more sense just prior to the Network launch, but not today.

Not only that, we're on the lead up to the Rumble then the road to Mania starts. You would think this would be the time to start building matches and getting things in place. Putting the belt on the shelve for a few months during a crucial time just tells me they either don't care or have no idea what to do with it. It's not like they are short of contender for it.

I just don't want to hear all the people who are saying this is a great idea, or they don't give a shit, start bitching and complaining about the lack of standards in the next few months. If it works out then you all can say "I told you so" but other than that, yea say nothing. Those of us that can see the potential disaster looming, and yes that might be a little over dramatic, will continue to bitch and complain, because we want to see the belt on TV and PPV's.

 

[rerun406]

I can see both sides of this argument on one hand the World HW title is one of the big prizes in pro wrestling and to have it sitting idle for 3-4 months is a complete waste however

"The Championship never seemed to be the focus of the show when Punk had it so this is almost the same thing."

^that's a pretty valid point as minus 1-2 title defenses Punk took a back seat to John Cena a bulk of the time ... shucks John Laurinaitis versus John Cena main evented a PPV over the coveted HW title

if the title is so important and coveted, why is John Cena vs a for the most part non wrestler headlining in a match up instead of that same title

with Reigns and Bryan on the sidelines, the rest of the main event picture is pretty thin

and if the only alternates to Lesnar as champ are Cena or Rollins (who might not be ready) I can't blame the WWE for sticking with the status quo

**though I wouldn't mind a brief 2-4 month title reign by Rollins with him dropping it back to Lesnar @ Rumble or Elimination Chamber

Rollins winning the belt and going from being the hunter to the hunted would be a nice change of pace. Everyone would be gunning for him as Champion

 

[WimpyKid4Life]

If this is the case, there is one way to look at it in the bright side. The championship is more coveted than ever because every Superstar's goal would not only be to beat the BEAST on a rampage and be champion, but to take the championship from the beast AND "part-timer" who is doing everything he wants with the belt, basically taking it hostage. The problem with this is that now Brock Lesnar doesn't seem like a beast. John Cena has been saying " 'I'm the one who beat the one" and " I SLAYED THE BEAST" and " I HAD BROCK BEAT" lately. Brock looks weak to me now. After conquering the streak, Lesnar loses to his next opponent: Cena. " The beast incarnate" isn't that monster championship run, he literally LOST his first tile defense !!! Now Brock needs as many successful title defenses as he could have. The reason there is not enough great programs for Brock is the WWE's fault. Cesaro booked right would seelike a great threat. Kane being the unstoppable monster would make for a great and logical program. If Big E had a great IC run and was being used lately, he would seem like a tough opponent. Hopefully Brock does have a great MONSTER run as champion.

 

[resignedknight]

Not only that, we're on the lead up to the Rumble then the road to Mania starts. You would think this would be the time to start building matches and getting things in place. Putting the belt on the shelve for a few months during a crucial time just tells me they either don't care or have no idea what to do with it. It's not like they are short of contender for it

But this time of year has always sucked and will always suck. They're usually building up a champion and having him squash people. Hence, the annual Surviror Series push for Big Show. They're just building up the champion a different way this time: By making us all legitimately hate him for denying us title matches. I Think it might actually work better, it's at least different.

 

[No Count Pup]

But this time of year has always sucked and will always suck. They're usually building up a champion and having him squash people. Hence, the annual Surviror Series push for Big Show. They're just building up the champion a different way this time: By making us all legitimately hate him for denying us title matches. I Think it might actually work better, it's at least different.

I would simply ask: How do you define success? In other words, what metric will be used to determine if keeping the title off pay-per-views is a good thing? Does Royal Rumble need a massive spike in subscriptions and buyrates to justify the four month lull? Does WrestleMania need a massive uptick as well? Will the next champion need to become an overnight draw?

What we do know, and what we can measure, is what is happening in the present. Ratings are bad, the Network is below projections, and WWE is trying to expand. How does prolonged garbage time help those causes, and what can WWE point to next year to say the garbage time was worth it?

 

[L@RISANO]

If this is the case, there is one way to look at it in the bright side. The championship is more coveted than ever because every Superstar's goal would not only be to beat the BEAST on a rampage and be champion, but to take the championship from the beast AND "part-timer" who is doing everything he wants with the belt, basically taking it hostage. The problem with this is that now Brock Lesnar doesn't seem like a beast. John Cena has been saying " 'I'm the one who beat the one" and " I SLAYED THE BEAST" and " I HAD BROCK BEAT" lately. Brock looks weak to me now. After conquering the streak, Lesnar loses to his next opponent: Cena. " The beast incarnate" isn't that monster championship run, he literally LOST his first tile defense !!! Now Brock needs as many successful title defenses as he could have. The reason there is not enough great programs for Brock is the WWE's fault.

Funny enough, that above is the one Major reason why Brock Lesnar needs to defend the belt a couple of times before the Rumble.

He "lost" by DQ in his first title defense, and not only that, he looked vulnerable in his loss against the same guy he absolutely SQUASHED about a month before(his F-5 from behind didn't make him look like a beast, let's face it.).


Even if he does only 2 title defenses before the Royal Rumble, and that too vs Cena and Orton...then so be it, but he needs to go onto the Road to Wrestlemania with as much Heel heat as possible if his Monster Booking since WM30 is to be worth it.
WWE teased some tension between Heyman(Lesnar) and the Authority on last RAW, and I do hope that is a recurring theme as time goes on to the point that whilst the Authority remains heel, Brock and Heyman become such enemies that they look for someone to take him down in desperation.


It makes no sense for Lesnar to receive such booking and opponents that makes the crowd cheer him.
That takes away from the moment when someone defeats him.

And no, making him look so vulnerable against Cena after such a short time(in his first title defense) was nothing short of bad booking the more I think about it, and some of that "monster heel" aura will need to be built back up before the Royal Rumble comes around so as to make him seem 'invincible' and 'unbeatable' as he should be after beating the Undertaker's Streak and squashing SuperCena.

 

[The Mattitude Era]

Funny enough, that above is the one Major reason why Brock Lesnar needs to defend the belt a couple of times before the Rumble.

He "lost" by DQ in his first title defense, and not only that, he looked vulnerable in his loss against the same guy he absolutely SQUASHED about a month before(his F-5 from behind didn't make him look like a beast, let's face it.).


Even if he does only 2 title defenses before the Royal Rumble, and that too vs Cena and Orton...then so be it, but he needs to go onto the Road to Wrestlemania with as much Heel heat as possible if his Monster Booking since WM30 is to be worth it.
WWE teased some tension between Heyman(Lesnar) and the Authority on last RAW, and I do hope that is a recurring theme as time goes on to the point that whilst the Authority remains heel, Brock and Heyman become such enemies that they look for someone to take him down in desperation.


It makes no sense for Lesnar to receive such booking and opponents that makes the crowd cheer him.
That takes away from the moment when someone defeats him.

And no, making him look so vulnerable against Cena after such a short time(in his first title defense) was nothing short of bad booking the more I think about it, and some of that "monster heel" aura will need to be built back up before the Royal Rumble comes around so as to make him seem 'invincible' and 'unbeatable' as he should be after beating the Undertaker's Streak and squashing SuperCena.

Am I missing something? I just don't understand your use of the bold feature.

 

[FromGlasgow]

Am I the only one who thinks its a good idea to hold back on the world title matches for a while? I think it makes the title mean so much more than when its defended in every episode of RAW and Smackdown, It gives time to build a match up and build a number 1 contender up instead of having a new number 1 contender on some weeks twice a week facing the same oponents over and over again. Also gives more time to build the other titles such as the intercontintel and us titles and elevate those to the main event level. Every world title match would feel so much more special and important.

 

[Navi]

Am I missing something? I just don't understand your use of the bold feature.

He does it for emphasis. Once you've been around for awhile, you'll get used to it.

Am I the only one who thinks its a good idea to hold back on the world title matches for a while? I think it makes the title mean so much more than when its defended in every episode of RAW and Smackdown, It gives time to build a match up and build a number 1 contender up instead of having a new number 1 contender on some weeks twice a week facing the same oponents over and over again. Also gives more time to build the other titles such as the intercontintel and us titles and elevate those to the main event level. Every world title match would feel so much more special and important.

No you're not the only one, but your reasoning is a bit off. First of all it isn't defended on every RAW and SD. Very rarely is the title ever defended on television, and if it is the outcome is usually the same, the champ always retains.

What we're talking about here is PPV's. It was widely reported that went it was announced that Lesnar was returning, and he was probably going to win the belt, we knew we would see him rarely. I don't think for one minute that anyone would have guessed we won't see him at all. Since he won the title, we've only seem him twice. And as another poster pointed out, his only title defense ended up with him almost being pinned. So instead of him looking like an unstoppable force he looked weak, as the guy that almost beat him was one he almost destroyed 3 weeks beforehand.

With the push back in the release of the WWE network to the UK, it's probably a good time if any to take him off the air. I can't imagine British fans being happy about the fact that are just getting the network and no champ in sight. I've heard he won't even be on the UK tour coming up. As a UK fan I'd be pissed not to see the WWE champ, considering they only come there twice a year.

 

[Navi]

But this time of year has always sucked and will always suck. They're usually building up a champion and having him squash people. Hence, the annual Surviror Series push for Big Show. They're just building up the champion a different way this time: By making us all legitimately hate him for denying us title matches. I Think it might actually work better, it's at least different.

If the answer to this is "this time of the year has always sucked" you would think they don't have to make it suck even more. And like I said before, we don't hate him, he's being told what to do, we are taking an active dislike to the decision that is being made. None of us are that stupid to think that these wrestler's go out there and do what they want. We know that it is scripted and while they might want to do something different, they don't often get the chance.

 

[resignedknight]

If the answer to this is "this time of the year has always sucked" you would think they don't have to make it suck even more. And like I said before, we don't hate him, he's being told what to do, we are taking an active dislike to the decision that is being made. None of us are that stupid to think that these wrestler's go out there and do what they want. We know that it is scripted and while they might want to do something different, they don't often get the chance.

I'm not suggesting that they're fooling us. But there is a fair amount of angst among many fans that they gave a part-timer the belt. Batista's mere presence in the main event scene set off the most genuine heel heat we've seen in years. Why wouldn't they be able to do that again now with another part timer who they actually gave the belt to, especially with a little storyline prodding?

 

[Navi]

I'm not suggesting that they're fooling us. But there is a fair amount of angst among many fans that they gave a part-timer the belt. Batista's mere presence in the main event scene set off the most genuine heel heat we've seen in years. Why wouldn't they be able to do that again now with another part timer who they actually gave the belt to, especially with a little storyline prodding?

We're talking apples and oranges here. There is a huge difference between Brock Lesnar and Dave Batista. When Batista came back, we all knew he was coming back to win the Rumble, and the fans wanted Daniel Bryan in the main event instead of Batista. Because of it and the YES movement, we got all three of them, Bryan, Batista and Orton.

I'm not pissed that they gave Lesnar the title, and I didn't expect him to show up every week on RAW and SD. I did however expect him to defend the title at the PPV's. If he's not even going to do that, then what's the point of having a title to begin with. Just give it to someone, and let them sit at home for a few months, show up, have a fight, and then go home for another few months. This isn't MMA, or UFC, fans expect to see that title being defended. There is even a 30 day clause according to Stephanie McMahon, stating the title should be defended at least once a month. So okay now that clause is null and void, well then give the title back to Daniel Bryan, cause that's why it was taken away from him.