Dean Ambrose's reign

[BestWrestlingOpinions]

It has been bugging me for a while so I will take it here for discussion. People keep saying that Ambrose is a joke of a champion, he has a bad reign etc etc. He is the longest reigning US champ, which seems quite prestigious in my eyes, but it doens't matter because he never defends it. That makes him not a real champion and so on.

First of all, Dean is not to be blamed for that. He is in a group that is working as a team ever since he debuted and was a heel so it was kinda pro wrestling 101 booking that he would never had a clean 1 on 1 match. Apart from that thought, would it make that much difference if he defended the title all the time?

I mean, let's say he defended it in every PPV and maybe on Raw like once per 2 months. If creative booked him to win all the time, he would still be the champion. Would that make the title any better? The reign any better? If anything, the things Ambrose has done with the Shield have made HIMSELF into something better than he would be if he relied on the title. If anything, it seems to me that JBL's line "everyone is afraid to come up to Ambrose and challenge him" is something awesome, because it makes Ambrose and the entire Shield just so dangerous that no one dares challenge them.

So, I can't see how defending the title would have made that much difference. To me, a title defense right now in a legit singles match would create that much more hype (against a decent opponent, that is), then having the title being defended all the time in meaningless matches. The Smackdown title match doesn't (well didn't) need to happen. After their feud with Evolution, they could have Ambrose being challenged by someone like Sheamus for the title. A rare title defense against a decent Superstar would certainly create more buzz and give some importance to the title than random matches against Kofi Kingston, Zack Ryder and Yoshi Tatsu.

 

[JoeFromTomsRiver]

The WWE wants it both ways. They want the mid-card belts to "mean something", but they don't want the champion to be booked to successfully defend it on a regular basis because that means that whoever is challenging for it is being "hurt" by losing a match for that title.

 

[Un-Bo-Lievable Jeff]

It has been bugging me for a while so I will take it here for discussion. People keep saying that Ambrose is a joke of a champion, he has a bad reign etc etc. He is the longest reigning US champ, which seems quite prestigious in my eyes, but it doens't matter because he never defends it. That makes him not a real champion and so on.

First of all, Dean is not to be blamed for that. He is in a group that is working as a team ever since he debuted and was a heel so it was kinda pro wrestling 101 booking that he would never had a clean 1 on 1 match. Apart from that thought, would it make that much difference if he defended the title all the time?

I mean, let's say he defended it in every PPV and maybe on Raw like once per 2 months. If creative booked him to win all the time, he would still be the champion. Would that make the title any better? The reign any better? If anything, the things Ambrose has done with the Shield have made HIMSELF into something better than he would be if he relied on the title. If anything, it seems to me that JBL's line "everyone is afraid to come up to Ambrose and challenge him" is something awesome, because it makes Ambrose and the entire Shield just so dangerous that no one dares challenge them.

So, I can't see how defending the title would have made that much difference. To me, a title defense right now in a legit singles match would create that much more hype (against a decent opponent, that is), then having the title being defended all the time in meaningless matches. The Smackdown title match doesn't (well didn't) need to happen. After their feud with Evolution, they could have Ambrose being challenged by someone like Sheamus for the title. A rare title defense against a decent Superstar would certainly create more buzz and give some importance to the title than random matches against Kofi Kingston, Zack Ryder and Yoshi Tatsu.

I think the issue is more that WWE have a belt on a guy who isn't involved in a storyline to defend it. It's not a personal attack on Ambrose. When they could use it on someone else to be involved. Ambrose has other things going on, so why have the belt on him??

Give to anyone else who can actually defend it in a storyline.

 

[Wally Dangerously]

You can't really consider a title reign to be good or bad if the title is hardly ever defended. Ambrose has been in some great matches since he won the belt, but they've been tag matches with The Shield.

Honestly, I think WWE has kept the belt on Ambrose just so he could surpass MVP's record.

 

[MCMG]

It's now at the stage where when he loses will be part of a storyline. I could easily see Triple H putting him in several matches on one night before he loses - abusing his power. Alternatively, it would be way to break off from The Shield or just Reigns. Ambrose could use the logic that he has been US champ whereas Reigns and Rollins have ALWAYS had back up.

I don't really mind it isn't being defended. It should happen more often but The Shield are more important then several throwaway matches against jobbers. They could use Main-event to defend it more often but it's not absolutely vital. If they use the fact he is champ in a smart way then it will be worth it.

 

[Reflection]

Either they did it (the plan came to mind towards the later months of what started as a coincidence) so that a TNA employee doesn't hold the record for being the longest reigning champion of any active WWE title,
OR,
they are planning to retire the title. Hornswoggle had a lackluster reign after which the Cruiserweight title was retired; the Knockouts Tag Team titles were retired after that accidental longest title reign by ODB and Eric Young; I have a feeling Dean Ambrose is the final U.S. champion before the title goes to the shelves.
I personally wouldn't mind the second case now that we probably have already witnessed the first.

 

[Pedigree1]

I dont mind it so much the belt isn't really defended all that much.. Its just a mantle piece for him at this point,not sure if the WWE kept it on him to surpass MVP's record or not.. Next up is Luger at I believe 542 days or something.. That i dont see happening,he would have to keep the belt till around December to break the record..

Ambrose as the US champion defending it,is not needed.. The shield as a core,is more important than any US title match at this point.. Ambrose is a hoss no doubt,can go with the best of them.. The shield at this point are in no danger of breaking up anytime soon IMO..

 

[Jack-Hammer]

In the grand scheme of things, if Ambrose or any champion has a lackluster reign, it's usually because of management and creative. After all, Ambrose is only champion because management decided to make him champion and the only way he's remained champion is because management decided that also. It's true that there have been times when someone has been a champion in WWE, or any wrestling company for that matter, when they really shouldn't have been. They either didn't have the ability and/or connection with the fans to really warrant being in that spot. That doesn't apply to Dean Ambrose because we all know he has the ability and The Shield have been one of the most over, solidly and consistently booked acts in WWE over the past 1.5 years.

It's ultimately up to WWE management to decide when, where and against whom Dean Ambrose defends the title; it's the same for any champion. Since we know Ambrose has the talent and fan interest to warrant the spot he's had and that the WWE brass decides title matches, the lackluster run of Ambrose as WWE United States Champion falls squarely on the heads of WWE management. I don't think it's done any harm to Ambrose or the title considering that Ambrose hasn't needed to be US champ for a long time, as he's been so over, and even being held by someone as over as Ambrose while not being defended much is still better than a champion that's a dead end. Still, it's just one of my own personal little pet peeves.

 

[Wrestlingaholic]

A title has no credibility or purpose if it isn't defended. What is the point in Dean Ambrose holding the title if he never defends it?

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

I'd like to see them keep it on him for as long as possible. Does anyone really notice that he's been champion for a year? I certainly haven't. Of course it's because he doesn't defend it, but does that really matter in the grand scheme of things? Sure it might hurt that titles prestige, but let's face it - it hasn't had much anyways for years. I'd like to see him defend it a little more often. Maybe once every 2 or 3 months... to make those defenses seem like a big deal. I'd like to see him hit the 500 day mark in one reign, because why not? Hasn't been done in forever.

 

[kadroan]

I think the issue is more that WWE have a belt on a guy who isn't involved in a storyline to defend it. It's not a personal attack on Ambrose. When they could use it on someone else to be involved. Ambrose has other things going on, so why have the belt on him??

Give to anyone else who can actually defend it in a storyline.

Ambrose is bigger the US title. He needs to lose the title to move on to bigger things. He could be a legit main event face/heel based on his work this past year.

I could see him matching up with Orton and HHH, being Bryan's worst nightmares. The possibilities are endless