Brock Lesnar WWE World Heavyweight Championship Run Thread

[Kizzani]

Wah wah wah, so we don't get a title defense for a few months. In the 80's and early 90's, the WWF title was basically defended 4-5 times a year, only at PPV's and imo, this was when the belt was at it's most important. People can bitch about Lesnar holding the title and not defending it, but how often do you people think Hulk Hogan defended the title throughout his 4 year title reign?

1984
1/23 MSG - beat The Iron Sheik to win the WWE Championship
2/20 MSG - beat Paul Orndorff by DQ
5/21 MSG - beat David Schultz
7/23 MSG – beat Greg Valentine
9/22 MSG – lost to John Studd by count out
10/22 MSG – beat John Studd
12/28 MSG – beat The Iron Sheik

Every two months.......Do you even know wrestling or did you think someone couldn't find the information?

Here is some more Fake ass fan.
2/18 The War to Settle the Score – beat Roddy Piper by DQ
3/1 WrestleMania – w/Mr. T beat Roddy Piper & Paul Orndorff
5/11 SNME – beat Bob Orton
10/5 SNME – beat Nikolai Volkoff
11/2 SNME – w/Andre the Giant beat King Kong Bundy & John Studd by DQ
11/7 Wrestling Classic – beat Roddy Piper by DQ

Here is the rest of the answers I won't post them all here.
http://prowrestling.about.com/od/thewrestlers/a/hulktimeline.htm

IF the title were still around today, the champ would either be Cena or Orton so what are you really missing?

Really.....So Rollins, Abrose, Wyatt, or anyone else would be considered. But hey I would take Ryder (God forbid) but at least he wants to wrestler.

All you're doing by making a thread like this is proving why Brock Lesnar is champion right now.

So you don't think a multi-million dollar company doesn't pay someone to read dirt sheets to get information. Sorry but if you love money like Vince you want to know what people think about your product. It would be bad business not to.

 

[LBGetBack]

Even during the Hulk Hogan era, when he rarely wrestled a full time schedule and often went more than a month between defenses, he was still a constant presence via promos on TV and did all the big shows and events. Hogan in the 80s was the last "part time champ" WWE really had, but he was more of a presence by a wide margin than Lesnar.

It's harder to build yourself as an unbeatable "bad@#$" when in fact you don't wrestle. Under those circumstances it would be easier to build him as a chickensh#@ coward who hides every chance he gets, at least with his schedule that would be believable. It's not what WWE wants though.

It should be noted though, that when Hogan won the belt at WrestleMania 9 in 1993, he didn't show up again until King of the Ring, where he lost it to Yokozuna. I'm pretty sure of that....no Raw appearances, nothing for a good 3 months! And then he lost it in his first defense, and left WWF.

 

[Navi]

I think we all know the is a problem that the WWE created for themselves, now how to get rid of it.

Lesnar is proven at bringing up the buyrates of PPV's when he appears. With the advent of the Network, and the fact that other companies like Dish won't carry them anymore, instead of getting $54.00 you are getting $9.99 per household.

Now you don't really need Lesnar to bring up the buyrates, because those that want to see the PPV's probably already have the Network and the rest can't get them. So get rid of the guy.

I"m not advocating defending the title on every show, God knows that would cheapen the belt, but it should be defended more than once every 4 months. And for those that don't or can't get the Network, there is nothing wrong with having it change hands on free TV once or twice a year. It doesn't have to be at a PPV the WWE can throw people a bone every so often.

The bottom line is they have a problem, and they have to solve it.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

From the perspective of business, I can understand why WWE brought Lesnar back. It's all about making money and Brock Lesnar makes money for WWE. Part of me, as a fan, enjoys Lesnar being back and part of me is also annoyed at the special treatment he's gotten, even though it can be argued with some credibility that he deserves it.

When Lesnar first returned a few yeas back, there were already some fans campaigning for Lesnar to be put into the title picture. Well, they finally got their wish and the result is a champ who disappears for months on end. For the most part, I've been against Lesnar being in the title picture because of how his deal with WWE is structured, which reminds me of what we see with most MMA fighters: a small handful of fights a year and appearances to promote & hype said fights and that's it. In Lesnar's case, when he was fighting in the UFC, every fight he fought earned him a mid six figure paycheck; even the one MMA fight he had before signing with UFC was for $250,000. I'd imagine he has a similar deal with WWE where he's making somewhere around $500,000 per match, he might even make so much per appearance on Raw.

Like a lot of people, I figured that Lesnar would win the title against Cena and drop it back to him a month later at Night of Champions, thereby giving Cena his 16th World Championship reign, before disappearing until it was time for the Royal Rumble. The downside with that was the predictability factor in that it'd be little more than a vanity run just like we saw with The Rock. Even though Lesnar didn't drop the title, the other downside came into play and that revolves around his deal, which I talked about earlier.

If I had to guess, and that's all is, WWE is banking on the rarity of Lesnar's appearances to make each title defense feel special, which I think will be successful to some degree. However, and there's almost always a however, the potential problem is that Lesnar's only title defense has been against John Cena and his next defense is also against John Cena. I get that Cena is the "face" of WWE and I get he's a money maker, but it's also true that there are fans from every walk of life, whether it be casual, average or hardcore, who're LONG burned out on Cena. As a result, some people could see this next match as another "What??? Cena again?????" scenario.

 

[Jimmy Jamm]

Why does he have to lose it at all...He should retire as champion...or atleast when he quits and goes back to the UFC...but have him leave as champion and just declare the title vacated...Why not, Brock seems to be the one guy that they are willing to do anything with at this point...

 

[MCMG]

I'm on board for Reigns beating Brock. It make sense with the future in mind and it is logical no matte what way you look at it.

Reigns is a big guy. If you want believability then there is no issue there. I don't get overly bogged down that the guy to be Brock has to be "believable" but Reigns fits the bill. Reigns is constantly improving on the mic and in the ring. If him and Brock really worked on it they could put on a fantastic match. Reigns is an athletic guy and Brock is just a monster. There is a lot of potential there.

Finally, Reigns kind of needs it. If he is to be part of the next group of main-event talent then a big win over Lesnar would be the ultimate boost. Wyatt has his character and promo abilities. Rollins got to turn on The Shield and align himself with HHH and Ambrose is a very good all-rounder. Reigns probably needs that little extra to take him to the next level when the others don't.

 

[Wrestlingfan100]

Daniel Bryan like CM Punk has an MMA background but Punk was trained by Gracie in his celebrity wing of his trainining which is not bad while he's been doing martial arts since 14 but this is not about Punk, this is Bryan.
Bryan was first released in the early 2000s and stated in a shoot interview he was close to quitting and was just going to wrestle for fun, go back to school and finish( fun fact, the only thing he was missing was a grade in physical education, seeing as he's a cardio monster now it's very funny).

Now many people will like to forget or not mention that Bryan has trained in MMA for over 10 years. He could realistically fight Lesnar and is the perfect middleweight size 5ft8 185 lbs. Bryan can realistically put on a believable fight with Lesnar if he sticks to his strikes and submission, I'd love a submission battle and Lesnar "breaks" his arm with the Kimura mid match and Bryan refuses medical help to go on to win

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I don't care about seeing the title defended. It can make for a nice story and emotional moments but is in no way guaranteed to provide me with the entertainment I'm looking for. Others disagree. They like seeing the title like some shiny object for a baby. In the Cena carousel of title wins, defenses, and losses I've rarely found myself caring about the title. DB's title wins were great. Punk was OK, The Rock beating Punk didn't really live up to the hype but was kind of cool. Brock winning the title is only interesting because of his contract and seeing how WWE handles his absence. Which sounds like they have been handling poorly.

But focusing on Brock, it seems like the second year of his contract has been a huge mistake for WWE. If it is true that he is willing to work on a pay by show appearance and they are not willing to pay him extra to show up tells me that the money is not there in his appearances. It may have been there in 2012 and 2013 but isn't there now. Lesnar and Cena were responsible for getting the fans that originally subscribed to the Network re-signed for NoC and thereafter and they failed. Lots of people dropped the Network and not many new have signed up. Why pay Lesnar more money if he is not helping WWE meet their goals?

So yes, the OP is kind of right. The fans bought in to Lesnar as a draw for a while. They put him in the spot he is currently in and now they are not supporting him the way WWE expects. But the blame is really on WWE for being so shortsighted to think goodie too shoes Cena and a part time Lesnar could carry this network to where it is supposed to go.

 

[sMark]

Honestly, i think WWE brought in Brock for the right reasons, but in the end of the day they didn't find a right way to use him.
Brock will have like 15 matches total in his recent WWE run, and you can't say his matches were used to it's full potential.
I mean, yes, matches vs Cena and vs HHH were dream ones for many fans, but why you need to do so many of them, why you don't make at least 1 vs Orton and at least 1 vs Bryan (ok, he got injured, maybe it actually was in plans), WWE have enough guys who could benefit from a match or moment with Lesnar (look how Curb Stomp on Brock gave Rollins a rub the second it was done), he wasn't used for Royal Rumble match, Elimination Chamber match, Survivor Series...you can't make a great DVD fans will be willing to buy out of his current run, with all the expirience WWE have behind them, they should plan all his 15 matches much better, to make it memorable and important.
Now, fast forward to the title win - why in the blue hell it happened with no good plan behind it in stone, why NoC appearance was wasted, why Lesnar didn't finish his story with Cena in Hell in a Cell...why he even won at Summerslam if he had like 3-4 dates left on his contract (and BTW i'am sure another date will be wasted for RAW is Slammy)?
If you have a guy who's only option now is to go for the title (because of victory over Taker) and who have 5 dates left on his contract, why you don't go with this story full ahead and run it like it should be - no 4 months breaks...if you want the final match take place at Mania, why you don't wait until Royal Rumble (or at very least Survivor Series) to make this guy a champ?
Or why you don't use this time to make IC and USA titles feel more important. They gave Lesnar the title, but they didn't use it for anything so far.
How to fix it? I think it's way too late to find a way to fix Lesnar's recent run. The last hope for anything worthy to watch with Brock in it was destroyed at Hell in a Cell, when Cena was able to beat Orton and get just another rematch with The Beast.
"Brock Lesnar was a great attraction who was totally wasted by WWE with their endless rematches and lack of direction" - this is what i think most people will say about his current run some time from now.

 

[L@RISANO]

I think the main problem with this Brock Lesnar Title Reign is how it has been built up since NoC.

Brock broke the Streak at Mania and then on his return, he was selected as the title challenger(something he wanted to do before Mania 30).
He then destroyed Cena at SummerSlam to win the title.
At NoC, the Rematch was the selling point and honestly, till then the Brock Lesnar WWE title reign had been handled well enough.


However, post-NoC is when the Brock Lesnar title reign has really gone south. The Main Story coming out of NoC was "Who gets Seth Rollins" where Cena and Ambrose basically fought over that.
Now, I get Cena was screwed out of the title to an extent by Mr.MitB Rollins at NoC, and thus seeked revenge.

However, what I never quite understood was;
Why isn't there anyone else on the roster who is interested going after the WWE title?
After all, Cena LOST his stipulated rematch anyways.


Yes, we got the rushed "No.1 Contender" match at HiaC, but even that was kind of a farce in a way. After all, Orton doesn't seem to remember he has a rematch for the title anyway, and thus, the no.1 contender's stip was added by way of an 'idea' thought up by Mr.MitB to appease Orton.



Would it have hurt programming to actually have Superstars express an interest in taking on the Beast whenever his next title defense happens?


The only problem is the one I have gone on about for quite a while, and that is the fact that the Main Event scene is thin normally, and is even more so with Reigns and Bryan out injured.
That said; having the title and the Champ off of TV is one thing, but then the next best thing is to focus programming on having someone else become a legit No.1 Contender for the WWE title, and I have to say, that is where WWE have ultimately failed with regards to Brock Lesnar's booking.


Now we will probably have to be content with Brock Lesnar's challenger list reading: John Cena, John Cena until Wrestlemania 31.

 

[stonecoldhell]

Brock Lesnar shits on WWE and the history, and every wrestler in it.

I think it so shitty that we not have a champions who's not even there in months on RAW/Smackdown.

How many apperance has Brock Lesnar?

The guy can't talk on the mic, his micskills are so bad, he sounds like a little girl, so he has someone else doing it for him, Paul Heyman, that does it good.

So while Brock Lesnar was taking the streak to pieces, shits on the current roster, and taking paycheck without doing something.

This is bad business, and it's really spitting all the fans and all the wreslters right in the face.

Fuck Lesnar.

 

[The Mattitude Era]

They've found a way to create a heel who is actually hated.

 

[snazzy]

He's the best monster heel the WWE has seen in a very long time... he is doing exactly what is required of him. If you want someone to moan at then moan at the WWE for their use of him and the booking. Put simply Brock Lesnar is one of the biggest names in sports entertainment, he IS a big draw, whether you like him or not. So no, he isn't "bad business". As for entertainment value, perhaps, but that's completely subjective. I'm okay with him not showing up, others aren't.

 

[stonecoldhell]

He's the best monster heel the WWE has seen in a very long time... he is doing exactly what is required of him. If you want someone to moan at then moan at the WWE for their use of him and the booking. Put simply Brock Lesnar is one of the biggest names in sports entertainment, he IS a big draw, whether you like him or not. So no, he isn't "bad business". As for entertainment value, perhaps, but that's completely subjective. I'm okay with him not showing up, others aren't.

No he's not.

Nobodoy likes Lesnar.

Lesnar got cheered becuase everybody is anti-Cena.

Just like everybody else Cena face, his opponents get cheered.

Everybody wanted to see Cena lose and get out of the TV-screen.

 

[Барбоса]

No he's not.

Nobodoy likes Lesnar.

Lesnar got cheered becuase everybody is anti-Cena.

Just like everybody else Cena face, his opponents get cheered.

Everybody wanted to see Cena lose and get out of the TV-screen.

Lesnar is not supposed to be liked. He is supposed to be watched. People are supposed to want to see who will dethrone him and with all of the chat about who will eventually do it - Reigns, Bryan, Cena, Orton - I think that that has been a success.

And to say that he is "shit" is ridiculous. His worst match since his return was with a heavily concussed, aged Undertaker, which still turned out to be one of the biggest shocks in wrestling history. His snorefests with HHH were exactly zero to do with him. He also had two great matches with Cena and Punk, and the squash of all squashes at this year's Summerslam.

Together with Heyman, Lesnar provides a focal point for the world title picture - the arrogant WWE champion who thinks (and can to a great extent prove) that all are beneath him.

On top of that, his absence is actually giving more exposure to other members of the roster. Do you really think that Rollins and Ambrose would have gotten the kind of exposure that they have had Lesnar been featuring regularly? Getting the crowd invested in the next generation is definitely good for business.

 

[Rayne]

1) Having a manager speak for a performer is one of the oldest and most successful tricks in the professional wrestling book.

2) You like the word 'shit' way too much. Diversify your vocabulary. Have you tried using 'fuck' more often?

3) The way you can tell how a performer isn't if people are saying bad things about him. This is a business in which the idea is to get attention for yourself. The simple, fool proof way to see if someone is or isn't successful at what he's doing is by seeing if people are talking about him. Despite Brock's ongoing absence, people don't stop bringing him up. As much as I don't agree with sitting the WWE Championship on the sidelines for three months, Brock still hasn't lost any of the heat which he had when he left.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Lesnar is not supposed to be liked. He is supposed to be watched. People are supposed to want to see who will dethrone him and with all of the chat about who will eventually do it - Reigns, Bryan, Cena, Orton - I think that that has been a success.

And to say that he is "shit" is ridiculous. His worst match since his return was with a heavily concussed, aged Undertaker, which still turned out to be one of the biggest shocks in wrestling history. His snorefests with HHH were exactly zero to do with him. He also had two great matches with Cena and Punk, and the squash of all squashes at this year's Summerslam.

Together with Heyman, Lesnar provides a focal point for the world title picture - the arrogant WWE champion who thinks (and can to a great extent prove) that all are beneath him.

On top of that, his absence is actually giving more exposure to other members of the roster. Do you really think that Rollins and Ambrose would have gotten the kind of exposure that they have had Lesnar been featuring regularly? Getting the crowd invested in the next generation is definitely good for business.

It is strange not to have the champion I must say, perhaps we are so accustomed to meaningless matches that have no follow throughs, that we miss them just for the sake of it.

I love the fact that the title is away; now there is a chance for good storytelling because for the longest ass time, people have been using the strap as a crutch for lazy booking and logic. However, my disdain for the present lies in the fact that they aren't elevating the other titles. Here is the golden chance for you to make the IC title shine because now, that is the highest honour goldwise. The same with the US title however once it is with Rusev, I think it may gain some value again.

This is a chance where the E can say fuck it, lets give some attention to the IC title and make it look like it is of some value. Let us have people come out and say "I fucking want the IC title Ziggler!" You have to create that atmosphere of importance. Sadly for like ever! it has been all about the big W strap, and now with Brock seldom seen, there is no gold really that a fan can invest in. Maybe thats why I want Brock back, I miss that big title fight feel.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

This post is solemnly and quietly addressed @OP's reply to my previous post:-

Hey man, I don't smoke substances, ever(unless if I happen to be out on a smoggy winter day). So I don't know what the "crack pipe" refers to. And I don't understand why you're on and on elaborating about Hustle, Loyalty, etc. My being loyal or disloyal has nothing to do with it.

All I was claiming and am claiming and do claim is this:-

There is no mystery about the fact that Brock Lesnar is a legitimate beast. Even though him beating The Undertaker(in his Uncle Fester self) in a lousy match takes away from the glory, he still has "conquered" the streak. He brings a certain freshness, mystique, and even charisma to the WWE WHC that has sorely and sourly been lacking, for years now. I do not think Batista, Roman Reigns, or Punk/Bryan as workhorse champions could bring that. And surely, we do despise and loathe the idea of Randy Orton/John Cena as regular wrestlers being champion for the 15th goddamn time. Hence, Brock Lesnar is the sole guy that has achieved this feat- of adding glory and mystique that was so far unbeknownst to the WWE WHC. Make a Wish foundation has nothing to do with a legitimate beast as champion. But it doth add charm and mystery and an element of sheer intensity and surprise, every time the champion makes his presence felt and known.

 

[Navi]

This post is solemnly and quietly addressed @OP's reply to my previous post:-

Hey man, I don't smoke substances, ever(unless if I happen to be out on a smoggy winter day). So I don't know what the "crack pipe" refers to. And I don't understand why you're on and on elaborating about Hustle, Loyalty, etc. My being loyal or disloyal has nothing to do with it.

All I was claiming and am claiming and do claim is this:-

There is no mystery about the fact that Brock Lesnar is a legitimate beast. Even though him beating The Undertaker(in his Uncle Fester self) in a lousy match takes away from the glory, he still has "conquered" the streak. He brings a certain freshness, mystique, and even charisma to the WWE WHC that has sorely and sourly been lacking, for years now. I do not think Batista, Roman Reigns, or Punk/Bryan as workhorse champions could bring that. And surely, we do despise and loathe the idea of Randy Orton/John Cena as regular wrestlers being champion for the 15th goddamn time. Hence, Brock Lesnar is the sole guy that has achieved this feat- of adding glory and mystique that was so far unbeknownst to the WWE WHC. Make a Wish foundation has nothing to do with a legitimate beast as champion. But it doth add charm and mystery and an element of sheer intensity and surprise, every time the champion makes his presence felt and known.

I hear what you're saying, don't agree with it but you just as myself are entitled to our opinions.

My basic problem with Lesnar and it's really with the WWE not him per say, is that he/they just don't seem to care. With the belt not showing up anywhere for months and no champ in sight, it's not adding any mystique to it at all. I see a lazy champ, and a company that can't or won't pay him to come on TV.

The whole contract thing he has with the WWE must be a bitter pill for the other wrestlers to swallow. When those on the roster that were former champs, were they not expected to show up, defend the title, and if they didn't like Daniel Bryan, stripped of it. And what do you say to someone like Roman Reigns when he does win? We'll be back to the seeing the title on TV all the time, he won't be allowed to have months off. So unless this is going to be the norm, and the WWE is going to start a trend here, there is no excuse for it.

Lesnar's run with the belt hasn't been a huge success no matter how you look at it. He wins the title, leaves, comes back at NOC, almost gets pinned and we don't see him again. Oh except for the night his manager almost gets AA'd. So he cares more about Paul Heyman than John Cena is basically what that showed. Also take into account, that he won off Cena, had the rematch against Cena and the next fight will be against Cena. His whole title run has been against you guessed it John Cena. Dismal.

 

[mlp420]

Of course it is. People that said him being off TV would be good for business were just rationalizing because they knew he was going to be off TV whether they liked it or not.

Him being a "Special Attraction" hasn't paid off for WWE in any measurable way. Network subs haven't moved and the PPVs he's on do no better then the PPVs he's not on. So they are sacrificing having their champ on TV and live events for nothing.

 

[OYDK]

1984
1/23 MSG - beat The Iron Sheik to win the WWE Championship
2/20 MSG - beat Paul Orndorff by DQ
5/21 MSG - beat David Schultz
7/23 MSG – beat Greg Valentine
9/22 MSG – lost to John Studd by count out
10/22 MSG – beat John Studd
12/28 MSG – beat The Iron Sheik

Every two months.......Do you even know wrestling or did you think someone couldn't find the information?

Here is some more Fake ass fan.
2/18 The War to Settle the Score – beat Roddy Piper by DQ
3/1 WrestleMania – w/Mr. T beat Roddy Piper & Paul Orndorff
5/11 SNME – beat Bob Orton
10/5 SNME – beat Nikolai Volkoff
11/2 SNME – w/Andre the Giant beat King Kong Bundy & John Studd by DQ
11/7 Wrestling Classic – beat Roddy Piper by DQ

Here is the rest of the answers I won't post them all here.
http://prowrestling.about.com/od/thewrestlers/a/hulktimeline.htm

Oh I'm sorry, 6 title defenses a year instead of 5. I guess I don't know wrestling and am a fake ass fan... But while we're debating here, Hulk Hogan won the title in January and in one full year defended the championship 6 times according to your website. By Mania Lesnar would have held the title for 7 months and have defended the title at least 3 times... So what the hell is your argument here? It's the exact same thing...

Really.....So Rollins, Abrose, Wyatt, or anyone else would be considered. But hey I would take Ryder (God forbid) but at least he wants to wrestler.

Like I said earlier, they need to take the last step. They are still seen as upper-midcard, not bona-fide main event. So Lesnar can leave, the title can go away, and these guys can get a chance to shine in the main event. Get it?

So now all it takes to hold the title is passion? Good point man.

So you don't think a multi-million dollar company doesn't pay someone to read dirt sheets to get information. Sorry but if you love money like Vince you want to know what people think about your product. It would be bad business not to.

Do you think WWE is going to look at this dirt sheet and say, "Oh shit, they're really angry that Brock Lesnar isn't defending the title, we should put it on Ambrose!"... No. If WWE were reading this forum right now they would probably say something like, "Wow, Lesnar's getting some real good heat, people are gonna pay big money to watch him lose at Wrestlemania", which was my original point.

 

[Terry Silver]

The guy is never around and doesnt defend. Its stupid. Then u got the other minor title holders losing non title matches and keeping the belts. Its all stupid

 

[mlp420]

Oh I'm sorry, 6 title defenses a year instead of 5. I guess I don't know wrestling and am a fake ass fan... But while we're debating here, Hulk Hogan won the title in January and in one full year defended the championship 6 times according to your website. By Mania Lesnar would have held the title for 7 months and have defended the title at least 3 times... So what the hell is your argument here? It's the exact same thing...

It is absolutely not the same thing. Different era. TV was syndicated B-shows and PPV was only 3-4 events. Now you've got a live 3 hour prime time show every week and PPVs every month. Hogan didn't need to defend the title as much because there weren't suitable events available for him to do so.

 

[Барбоса]

Of course it is. People that said him being off TV would be good for business were just rationalizing because they knew he was going to be off TV whether they liked it or not.

Him being a "Special Attraction" hasn't paid off for WWE in any measurable way. Network subs haven't moved and the PPVs he's on do no better then the PPVs he's not on. So they are sacrificing having their champ on TV and live events for nothing.

But surely the lack of movement suggests that it is not bad for business to have the champ missing?

It might not be spiking the ratings but it isn't tanking them either, suggesting that having the champion present would not make any difference either (aside from having to pay Lesnar more money) while at the same time giving us something different and opening space for newer talent.

 

[Dyscord]

Actually, putting the belt on Lesnar was one of the better decisions they've made in a while. They now have a WWE champion that's so dominant that he really doesn't have to be at every show or every PPV. People fight for the chance to get into the ring with him and win the title. I personally think it brings some much needed prestige back to the title.

Speaking of prestige....

This is a chance where the E can say fuck it, lets give some attention to the IC title and make it look like it is of some value. Let us have people come out and say "I fucking want the IC title Ziggler!" You have to create that atmosphere of importance.

This. with Brock gone I figured this would have been the natural route to go. It's pretty sad that when someone mentions the IC belt, I have to stop for a second and remember who it is.