Should the World Heavyweight Championship be defended at every PPV?

[timmy872]

This question came to my head today after two fantastic pay-per-view showings from WWE; Survivor Series and TLC. This are two of the best PPV's I personally have seen in a long time.
With that it made me think about how we have not had a WWE WHC defense at either.
This is why I think it is a great idea to have the top title not defended every PPV. It has made the matches more about story and character development: fantastic showings by Rollins, Reigns, Ambrose, Wyatt, even dare I say it John Cena. Maybe I am just sick of seeing John Cena holding the title closing every PPv for the past 10 years and I am becoming cynical. Vince said it himself in his interview with Austin, I forget if it was about Lesnar or the title.
I also think this is bringing more prestige to the US and IC title.

If we were a few years ago people like Ziggler, Harper, Rollins and Wyatt would already be in the hunt for the wwe or whc on their respective shows. In my opinon their was always condradicton with a wwe title and a whc in past years, it meant that superstars reached the 'brass ring' much earlier on in their careersand I personally think it was a method of putting more acolades under superstars belts much too early. I think it also encourages career longevity for young stars.

Anyone agree? Any other points to raise? Disagreements x

 

[Dagger Dias]

The World Heavyweight Championship needs to be defended at every PPV event. The whole point of being a wrestler is to become a World Champion, to win the most prestigious prize (or retain it) on the biggest shows. Survivor Series and TLC both felt incomplete. Hell In A Cell was garbage. All three of these shows would have been better had the top prize been up for grabs like it should have been. Without a World Heavyweight Championship match on the card, the card lacks the focal point the whole show should center around. Had there still been two World Championships then we would be having a different discussion. The two belts could alternate on which one is defended on less important shows. That's no longer the case though, we only have one World Championship. Starting with the Royal Rumble next month, WWE should never deprive fans of a monthly World Heavyweight Championship match again.

 

[Fisheatppl]

While I don't necessarily think the Championship NEEDS to be defended at EVERY PPV... This has become ridiculous. I did not have a problem when CM Punk was injured but still champ and did not defend the title at one PPV, but he was still around. I don't think Lesnar needs to show up on Raw, especially with Heyman there, but if he's not going to be on Raw he should at least be defending the title on PPV. Especially the large ones, like Survivor Series. I mean the wait between defenses was long enough that we had a #1 contenders match, and then 2 more PPV's and ANOTHER #1 Contenders match without the title being defended.

And I think its made even worse by the fact that they JUST had the storyline of Bryan giving up his title because he physically COULDN'T defend it, and in this story line the guy just doesn't WANT to defend it, for many months at a time. I get that WWE doesn't expect us to have long term memories about this type of thing, but the 2 stories are within the same calendar year. Along with no one on the roster seeming to care there is no Championship to fight for, its all just too much.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Every so often, I'd be okay with the title not being defended at every single ppv as a means of just shaking things up, but that should only happen rarely. For instance, it wouldn't bother me if there was no WWE WHC match at the MITB ppv, that way the MITB matches would be truly the center of the event. However, given that there's now one World Championship, it looks like it's WWE's plan going forward to have one MITB match at the ppv and one multi-man ladder match for the title itself like we saw earlier this year. Personally, I'd rather there were two briefcase matches with one being for the WWE WHC and the other being for the Intercontinental Championship but that's just an ideal scenario, for me at least, and it's probably better left with the current format until Vince decides to use the IC title on a strong, consistent basis. I'd also be okay if the title wasn't defended because of the champ being injured and management was waiting to see what the doctors told them concerning the champ's condition, as we saw with Daniel Bryan earlier this year. However, on the whole, the WWE World Heavyweight Championship should be defended at every ppv. What's the main event scene without a main event championship to fight for? The answer is ultimately what TNA's mid-card scene was for the last few years I watched it: which is basically guys floating around with no particular goal to shoot for.

To me, the title only being defended sporadically with Lesnar as champion doesn't make the title defenses feel special. Although, to be fair, they might if Lesnar's defenses hadn't all been against John Cena. I mean, let's face it, no matter which way you slice it, there are a lot of fans that are just burned out on John Cena being the champion, being in the title picture itself and Vince McMahon's reluctance to even really consider pushing somebody else as the top name. If anything, I think Lesnar being champion has only increased the level of resentment some fans have towards him because of the sweetheart deal he has and the preferential treatment he's been given.

 

[bioshock]

Well usually the champion makes the show better. Not too many PPV's in WWE's history that didn't have its champion wrestling some way or another, HBK missing No Way Out in 1998 is one of the few that comes to mind. Its just not good business.

I get the whole leave Brock off free tv thing, but put him on PPV, and if they want it to be like the old days when Hogan was champion, and well even then he was on SNME each month, but take away the inbetween PPV events and only have him on the big ones, but again even Hogan, Warrior and Savage during the era of a few PPV events were on every SNME defending or at least wrestling usually.

Remember WWE always had that kayfabe rule of defending the belt every 30 days, and they even used that rule during the summer to strip Bryan of the belt.

 

[oldschool4ever]

i do not think it should be defended at EVERY ppv. however it needs to be defended more often or else they will need to eliminate the money in the bank briefcase. if the champion is not around to be vulnerable then theres no need to have the contract. I think 6 times a year would be a good number. The 4 major ppv's and one or two in between. The problem with this whole discussion though is once lesnar drops it to reigns or cena then the champ is on every show and they almost have no choice but to have them defend it. I think the IC and United States titles need to be elevated even more so so that they can be main event matches for the less know ppv's. This would also make it more of a stepping stone on the way to the heavyweight title. I think the overall point is you need a champion thats not limited to appearances by contract like lesnar but someone who can show up on raw and cut a promo and then not be seen again for 2-3 weeks. I am not quite sure who really would fit that bill at this point in time.

 

[Just Zay'n]

It should definitely, 110%, be defended at every pay per view.

Don't forget, for the last year, you've been paying $10 a month to not see the title being defended, bar 2 or 3 times.

 

[Double S]

Not every ppv, some matches like hhh, flair, Jericho vs Nash michaels booker at backlash 2003 serves a purpose, and with Goldberg in the main event that year it wasn't needed (lesnars defence was even vs a midcarder so the titles were far from focus, and it's ok!

Survivor series can have the champ in a 5v5 match or something as long as they're present

 

[TheICChampion]

Yeah, I think the title can be defended sparingly, but the champ needs to show up every now and then. I mean, for the past 3 months we've barely even seen Heyman, much less Lesnar. As JH said, if it's at a PPV that has a theme like MitB, I'm fine with it not being on the line, but for the Big 4 and PPV's that don't have particular themes like Hell in a Cell or TLC, then the champion NEEDS to show up. I'm getting sick of not even seeing Lesnar, and it's really hurt WWE, because if I wasn't practically paying nothing to see the PPV's, then I wouldn't have even bothered watching.

 

[TDFG]

Not necessarily every PPV, Survivor Series or a storyline where the Champ is in a tag-match in the main-event is something I have no problem with.

However it needs defended a lot more than what we've seen under Lesnar's reign, The Rock got criticized a lot about his last reign and that was only from Rumble - WrestleMania, WWE should have learnt their lesson, this isn't Boxing or UFC, wrestling fans expect the biggest belt to be defended regularly.

 

[L@RISANO]

The positive about Brock's absence for much of programming has been that we have been able to watch PPVs NOT centred around a WWE WHC match.

However, on the other side, the amount of time he has been absent has been a bit counter productive as well, as I feel there needs to be a balance.



Personally, I'd Only like to see the WWE WHC defended when the feud/storyline for it is well built, and not just rushed because, as some have mentioned above, "there absolutely Has to be a title match at every PPV."

I think a balance needs to be kept, in a way that every time the Champion goes out there to defend his belt, it actually means something, and is not some throwaway feud built within a couple of weeks, with no real animosity of sorts between the Champ and his challenger(s).


Ideally, the WWE WH Champions should be defending the title at every couple of PPVs, which would mean around 5 times a year.
That gives the title value in itself and allows the WWE to build the feuds properly enough for viewers to get interested in the match to the fullest rather than just putting together throwaway feuds for the title with a challenger who is put in that spot for the sake of it...and with so many title challenges per year, it makes viewers/fans get tired quickly of the Champions as well, which means unneccessary title changes occurring.


However, I would prefer that the Champion himself doesn't go completely absent from programming like Brock has, but at least shows up regularly to make his presence felt whether he has a title defense coming up or not.


Seeing blood feuds like Ambrose vs Wyatt/Rollins and No.1 Contender matches being focal points of 2 PPVs was refreshing, though both were rushed because of WWE having too many throwaway PPVs during the year(another subject altogether). So I hope that such can continue as time goes on, rather than just having a title match headline every PPV for the sake of it, especially given the current PPV format.

 

[sayr811]

I have been watching WWE/WWF/WWWF most of my life and have always been under the impression that titles had to be defended every 30 days. I've seen the title stripped from wrestlers for just that reason. John Cena gave up the title because of injury and recovered from that injury in shorter time than the time between Brock Lesnars title defenses.

Personally, What would be more interesting is that all titles are on the line all the time. If a champ is wrestling their title should be on the line!!!

Just one man's opinion!!

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

In years gone by; it has been common for every WWF PPV to usually have a WWE title or world heavyweight title match on the card.

But the WWF title used to be defended every 3 months at WWF PPV's and special TV events as a general rule until around 1995 when WWF In Your House came about and WWF began doing monthly PPV's.

I think only having Brock currently defend sometimes is making thE WWE championship more unique and therefore more prestigous.

So at the moment I am happy with that!

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Nah, and its a bad habit we got into at some point. The world title should be a once in a while thing, and hot feuds and mid card titles should be allowed to be given some main event shine.

WCW used to do it all the time, with super-hot feuds and great pay-offs in the main event of PPVs (DDP - Savage comes to mind immeadiately) or number one contender matches as well (which furthermore puts over the importance of the world title)