Do Rookies deserve world title reigns?

[An Angry Blonde]

Title says it all, do you believe that Rookies desvere world title reigns in their early years?

It seems ALOT of people were pissed when ADR didn't win the WHC, even though he hasn't been in the WWE for a full year. Most of the time early world championship reigns hurt the wrestler more than they help them(Swagger, Sheamus(SP?),etc.)


My Questions to you are as follows....
#1: Do you believe that Rookies should recieve a world title in their early years, or Should they earn the titles first.

#2: Do rookies recieving world title reigns before they are ready hurt the prestoge of the world Championships?(And dont pull that 'WWE titles have no prestige' Bullshit)

#3:Should the world titles be used to put over the newer talent?

#4:Are their any exceptions?

And to answer #4 were there any expections from the past that did win the title in their rookie year, and are their any wrestlers IN THE WWE that havn't won a WWE world Championship that you feel are ready or deserve a title reign as world champ.

 

[CelticCorey]

Rookies would have to be EXCEPTIONAL and I mean EXCEPTIONAL talent to deserve a World title reign (e.g. Lesnar)

Del Rio has it all- look, believability, seasoned vet, mic skills and ring skills. Has excellent charisma and a great character. While I wasn't a big fan of his at the time, Wade Barrett did have everything except ring skills. His mic work was terrific and he was feuding with Cena no less. So if he won it, I would've been fine with that.


I would like to see them earn their titles by midcard first but if they have everything, if they work hard, get over, do it all, then I wouldn't be too opposed to it. It is true that WWE titles are hurting with prestige but if someone gains a lot of credibility during their rookie year, I could see it happening. Someone like a Brodus Clay should be squashing the mid card and be destroying people in his path. He has every bit of believability to become a champion but instead he's Edge and Christian's bitch every week. Yes I know he is paying his dues but damn with a guy his size I could believe him becoming champ. If he wins at the end of 2011 and gets built up well as a monster heel, then I wouldn't be opposed to it but I prefer he gets a good midcard feud or two first. He isn't bad on the mic either.

World titles should NOT be used to put over new talent. Guys like Ziggler, Rhodes, Morrison, Christian and Barrett are vets (well Barrett a one year vet in WWE) they are the top priority IMO for the next new champions once Del Rio finally wins it.

Although I will say, with the way Sin Cara is being hyped out, I can see him winning a championship within a year. I am not so sure how quick it'll be and he may have to wait until 2012 but the writing is on the wall he will be a champ near the end of his rookie year or the beginning of his second year IMO. I could see Sin Cara being ready and Brodus isn't ready but if they are serious and push him hard for the rest of the year then I could see him fitting into it in no time. I could see him being a kind of guy who feuds with your Cena and Orton. That's just me.

So while I prefer rookies not win the World Title, there are some exceptions who do have what it takes but should be built up months before first.

 

[Deexter Jorgan]

should Rookies have titles?, i would say no...

even in the case of Wade Barrett he was never ready for a WWE title run, i did enjoy his storylines with main eventers such as Cena but he was never ready to carry the companies main championship.

As far as Del Rio is concenrned yes, he does deserve the title because he is far from a rookie in pro wrestling standards but would probably be considered one in WWE standards.

I am under the firm belief that each individual that wrestles for the company should be treated differently, such as Daniel Bryans Us title reign, the guy particularly got over due to his own ability and WWE's storytelling machine, elevating both Bryan and Miz to their respective championships, it allowed Bryan to showcase his own ability and nuture his anti-wwe attitude to gain the title and become the longest reigning current US champion in the wwe.

should this method be used to utilise rookies? no, because i am a firm believer that most rookies need to pay their dues before being rewarded with a title reign, Barret has a long way to go before securing a world title and no rookie should secure that title without first proving their ability.

 

[Aaronliveshere]

I don't have a problem with it, but he needs to be exceptional. Before leaving WWE, I heard an interview with Kurt Angle. He said something to the fact that there were 2 types of stars. Ones who need the belt and ones who don't. Giving a belt to a new guy has become a way of building them up to top tier levels. 2 guys that come to mind are Sheamus and Jack Swagger. When they first got the belt, they were thought of as instant top tier players. (At that moment in time).

 

[Nate DaMac]

It's all on a person to person basis. Classifying every rookie as being "not ready" for a title reign is horseshit. Given the person would have to appear credible, like Brock Lesnar for instance, but to say that you have to have a certain amount of time in the company before winning the title is a little off in my opinion. If you're good enough to win the World Title, you deserve it. It shouldn't matter if you're a rookie or not.

Personally,I don't think ADR is World Championship material. But if they were to give him the strap, I wouldn't mind. Apparently the company feels differently and taking a small chance on him would be OK. Either it works or it doesn't, no harm no foul.

 

[Midnite Express 2009]

How would you define "rookies". I doubt anymore than most wrestlers that make it to the WWE are clasified as "rookies", they are usually Indy stars that get their call up to the Big League and go on from there. So, if this were say, 1981, then my answer would be a resounding...NO! One of the unwritten rules in professional wrestling back in the
70s & 80s were that wrestlers paid their dues and also that only a certain select few deserved World Title status (usually in the NWA). But of course, those were the days when the title WASN'T a prop and actually meant something.

So with that being said, I firmly believe that a "rookie" by today's standards, still shouldn't get a World Title run because (a) we have yet to learn anything about this person long term, (b) it dilutes the title even more & (c) usually the "rookie" winning the title gets buried after losing it (i.e. Jack Swagger & Khali).

A rookie is someone who has been with the company (IMO) less than 1 full calander year and has yet to have main evented a BIG PPV (sorry, but Extreme Rules is NOT a major PPV). I was in favor of Alberto Del Rio winning the title at WrestleMania but understand now why he didn't. It's the Steve Austin in ECW situation when Austin was ever so close to winning the ECW title only to come up short. Had Alberto won, his career in 6 months time would have been buried. Give a superstar a few years & then see what he's made of. See how the fans look at him long term, not just for the moment. Hopefully that'll work.

 

[LFC till i die]

Yes, if they are good enough, over with the crowd and have the skills and abilities to be a top talent then i dont see why not.

Also no, because with some of the rookie wrestlers who have become champion they dont keep the title for long and go back to being a jobber or a midcarder (Swagger, Sheamus) which hurts their status and it can at times ruin the prestige of the title.

 

[Charismatic Enigma]

It really is on a case by case basis, but in the case of ADR absolutely, because he isn't really a "rookie", he isn't anymore of a rookie than when Ric Flair arrived in WWE back in '92. Just because WWE chooses not to acknowledge the existance of any other wrestling organizations doesn't mean they don't exist.

Someone like say Swagger, no he definitely didn't deserve it, because his entire professional wrestling career he spent in the WWE. Regardless of how good someone is, I still believe they should at least be a little seasoned in the business before winning it's top prize, so that they can respect their accomplishment and know there were many highly qualified individuals like Piper, Perfect, and Bulldog before them who never got that honor.

The only time I would maybe consider making an exception to this is if someone was WAAAYYYY over, I mean like Hogan over. To the point that it would just be dumb business to not advance them, but those circumstances are few and far between nowadays.

 

[Wade's Public Transit Bomb]

Maybe this is just an outsider looking in and realizing that everything is.. I dunno, predetermined.. That whole paying your dues is stupid.

If the guy is legit good enough to keep the crowd interested and the crowd believes him enough to be a champion, I don't see the harm. Especially when they are giving a guy more on air time then the actually champion. (Barrett last year, Del Rio so far this year)

"Rookies" are the only ones capable of being shit champions. Last year, Orton was dog shit over, but it didn't take the WWE long to keep him from being an active part of the show. He was the first WWE champion I remember in which he had absolutely nothing to do with the build up to his matches; Barrett and Cena were the talkers and workers leading up to the Bragging Rights and Survivor Series title matches.

 

[Karaoke Superstar]

My Questions to you are as follows....
#1: Do you believe that Rookies should recieve a world title in their early years, or Should they earn the titles first.

Deserving means little in Pro Wrestling and life in general. It's a gamble to give the title to new guys who are mostly unproven, but sometimes it pays off well. And other times it's a failure. If the guys in the back think a wrestler will make a great champion and bring ratings and want to give it a shot then that's their prerogative.

#2: Do rookies recieving world title reigns before they are ready hurt the prestoge of the world Championships?(And dont pull that 'WWE titles have no prestige' Bullshit)

Yes it does, WWE's strategy is this: Don't mention it and people will forget. It works surprisingly well.

#3:Should the world titles be used to put over the newer talent?

I don't think they should. My problem with it is it creates the impression that unless you have at least one world title reign under your belt you're nobody. They shouldn't need a world title to get over, especially when mid-card titles will suit that.

#4:Are their any exceptions?

And to answer #4 were there any expections from the past that did win the title in their rookie year, and are their any wrestlers IN THE WWE that havn't won a WWE world Championship that you feel are ready or deserve a title reign as world champ.

Not really sure what you mean on that. Do you mean were there times when a rookie holding a title worked and was a good idea? Yes, there was. Brock Lesnar first comes to mind.

 

[SyndicateSaint]

Title says it all, do you believe that Rookies desvere world title reigns in their early years?

It seems ALOT of people were pissed when ADR didn't win the WHC, even though he hasn't been in the WWE for a full year. Most of the time early world championship reigns hurt the wrestler more than they help them(Swagger, Sheamus(SP?),etc.)


My Questions to you are as follows....
#1: Do you believe that Rookies should recieve a world title in their early years, or Should they earn the titles first.

#2: Do rookies recieving world title reigns before they are ready hurt the prestoge of the world Championships?(And dont pull that 'WWE titles have no prestige' Bullshit)

#3:Should the world titles be used to put over the newer talent?

#4:Are their any exceptions?

And to answer #4 were there any expections from the past that did win the title in their rookie year, and are their any wrestlers IN THE WWE that havn't won a WWE world Championship that you feel are ready or deserve a title reign as world champ.

All of this depends on what your definition of rookie is.
If you mean just someone who is new to WWE then the answer to your questions are:

1. For a needed shock value as in the case of Hulk Hogan (first run) and Brock Lesnar I think it could be good.

2. It depends on the person they get the title from. If a new guy beats someone like a....Ric Flair, then I'd say no. Just as long as they are a good champion. I don't think Sting would have helped the NWA title if he didn't perform good matches. But since he did, and beat an established guy like Flair, the title was improved. I know Sting wasn't a rookie when he won it, but that was just an example.

3.Yes. In the case of someone experienced like CM Punk when he came in or Alberto Del Rio who's been wrestling for 11 years, it could give them credibility to the fans who haven't seen them perform before.

4.Once again my exception concerns what your definition of rookie is. Should a guy with a year experience come in and dominate....probably not. But if he's got 10 years experience I see no reason to neglect giving them an early title reign.

 

[richunclescrooge]

#1: Do you believe that Rookies should recieve a world title in their early years, or Should they earn the titles first.
They should earn other titles first. Ideally the IC/US title should be as far as someone should get in their first year or two. It would show that they have a lot of promise for the future while still establishing them as a star. The problems now are lazy booking (giving someone a world title as a means to initially get them over) and that there is only 1 undercard title on each show. There used to be the European title. The IC and US belts are currently being booked like the European belt because there is only 1 undercard title on each show. The European title was more of a low card belt and was pretty much just a belt to put on someone to push them, and did not really have much prestige.

#2: Do rookies recieving world title reigns before they are ready hurt the prestoge of the world Championships?(And dont pull that 'WWE titles have no prestige' Bullshit)
Yes, but also having the world titles change hands every other month hurts it too. That's what was great about the Hardcore belt. Everyone knew it didn't really mean anything so it could change hands constantly and anyone could win it.

#3:Should the world titles be used to put over the newer talent?
No, use other belts and intriguing storylines/feuds.

#4:Are their any exceptions?
Possibly if the wrestler has already been well established in another promotion (like Booker T during the invasion, or if they signed Sting now), otherwise just let the guy get over first and make the crowd really want to see them in the main event.

 

[berlinbrawler]

In the end it's all business and they'll give the title to whom they presume will draw the most money. If that happens to be a rookie doesn't matter.

Personally, I don't like it. The titles loe prestige when they are used this way. Also on the long run the wrestler will likely suffer from it. Chances are this inexperienced rookie will have the ball too early and won't be able to make his run a memorable one. And once he fails as champion, he will lose the belt and sink down to the midcard swamp for a long time. It happened to Orton. He feuded for the IC and tag titles title after having already been champion, which was an obvious step backwards for him. He eventually got back in the title picture, but it took a long time.
It happened to Jack Swagger and Sheamus. Both are midcarders now and have a long way back up. And they won't enjoy their current position because they had already sniffed higher air.

On a related note, when the rookie champion fails miserably, like Swagger, the value of the title drops considerably. It's quite a gamble.

 

[tripleddd]

generally i beleive rookies need to work there way up to the main event/title unless they are an exceptional individual (brock lesnar for example) of the present crop all need to earn their title shot but if i was wwe/vkm i would be pushing Jack swagger

 

[Melina]

#1: Do you believe that Rookies should recieve a world title in their early years, or Should they earn the titles first.

Generally I would like them to rise through the ranks. Forcing World Titles on those not ready is a recipe for disaster.

#2: Do rookies recieving world title reigns before they are ready hurt the prestoge of the world Championships?(And dont pull that 'WWE titles have no prestige' Bullshit)

It absolutely can. Swagger went from semi-jobber to World Champ in 2 weeks. His reign was not really as bad as many make it out to be IMO, but he was not near over enough to try and carry Smackdown.

#3:Should the world titles be used to put over the newer talent?

No. There are Mid Card Titles to experiment with that on, why use the Main Straps?

#4:Are their any exceptions?

Brock Lesnar comes to mind as the biggest exception. By your definition of Rookie, Alberto Del Rio is also an exception, but mainly because of his experience.

Had Sheamus been booked better (as a Monster Heel Champion), then he would have been an exception as well. Its not hard to believe Sheamus as a Monster Heel Champion, but instead it felt like he grinded out his first reign instead of dominating.

 

[sabataged]

Well in the old days I would defintiely say now but these days when the World Title is nothing more than a prop, I would say yes.

These days it is all about what have you done for me lately meaning right this minute. So I feel if a rookie is red hot and has the right tools they are deserving of the title. I think rookies like Sheamus and Wade Barrett are/were more than worthy. Del Rio is another one that is more than deserving of the title if the situation is right.

 

[I_got_bant_for_idiocy]

Yes they do cause some of these rookies like wade and del rio have more skills than some of these vets like morrison, jack swagger, christian,cena and others.. just cause a rookie can outshine someone whos bin doing it for years is no reason to keep them down.. rookies like brock and sheamus are prime examples

 

[Reddog1146]

I do not think that every rookie should be a contender for the world title. i think that it should happen randomly like with brock lesnar. no one expected him to win because rookies usually never got the oppotunity like he had back in that era. but now, nearly every rookie is getting this unstoppable run and pushing out some guys who have been working hard for years like christian out oft the way for a chance at the world title.

 

[xcoN]

No, they don't. I'd rather have them get built up and work their way up to a WHC reign. This is what the I.C. and U.S. titles are SUPPOSE to be used for but not anymore. I was happy to see Wade winning the I.C. title and not the WHC since he didn't deserve it yet and honestly, he's still not a good wrestler. Sin Cara is obviously jumping right into the main roster and i'm hoping he doesn't win the WWE/WHC anytime soon. They are currently hyping up and continueing to build up Del Rio which is good. Glad he lost at W.M. 27 but is still getting a shot. Him losing at 'mania also made it a little less predictable. The younger stars are the future and future champions but not right away. This is why getting rid of Husky Harris, Hennig, Mason Ryan was stupid. Instead of building them up more, they are back in FCW for stupid reasons.

 

[ABMorales787]

In wrestling, it's about earning your way up. You'l always hear the stories of how guys worked their way up from small indy feds to WWE or WCW and fight through whatever politics exist there. Funny enough thats a bit rare now. While these cases do exist people can just go straight to WWE development and start there. Most of todays younger crop of talent is just that. As we've seen in the past, there are times when WWE puts the "way of the business" aside and instead focus on developing a character in a hurry. That's not always a bad thing. Look at Kurt Angle and Brock Lesnar. By the time they were 2 year pro's they were holding the WWE Championship. Then again, some do come with consequence. At the same time they were rising, you had guys like Edge, Chris Jericho, Chris Benoit and many more that were in the business longer. Wrestling is a dog eat dog world. And even if nobody is happy with the idea of a relative nobody stepping over them going agaisnt the decisions can make things worse. Especially in todays world where WWE is the only top organization. Either you put up or go somewhere smaller.

Do I believe a rookie should be able to walk in and step over men who've worked for years? Well to me it's about who's the best. If I went with the philosophy of rewarding long-time workers that would mean Hardcore Holly as a WWE Champion. Or Viscera and even Funaki. If you walk in to the business one day and show that in less than a year you can do a far better job than the 10 year vet over there then you should go where you can be most efficient.

Do rookies winning a World title hurt it's cred? Ask Jack Swagger. He was clearly nowhere near ready. Now the record reads Jack Swagger is a former World title reign. Same with Dolph Ziggler and his "blink and you miss it" reign.

Should the World titles be used to put over the newer talent? No. That's what the midcard scene is for and it should be used as such. Big Show (as The Giant) made his wrestling debut by beating Hulk Hogan for the WCW Championship. Was that a good idea? He would find himself most of the time in the midcard. The idea is to go up on the card. Not down. Also, Sheamus. He started as WWE Champion. Then he went down to become King of the Ring and now United States Champion. He went down when the idea of a starting career is to go up. There's also Kane (as a character). In a year he won the WWE Championship. Something he would not win for over a decade. Something sounds wrong there and it's not me mixing up the World titles.

Are their any exceptions? As I mentioned, if the man shows that kind of superiority, then yes. Kurt Angle and Brock Lesnar started at the top and stayed there because they showed they were superior enough to bypass everyone else.

 

[The Champ]

My Questions to you are as follows....
#1: Do you believe that Rookies should recieve a world title in their early years, or Should they earn the titles first.

#2: Do rookies recieving world title reigns before they are ready hurt the prestoge of the world Championships?(And dont pull that 'WWE titles have no prestige' Bullshit)

#3:Should the world titles be used to put over the newer talent?

#4:Are their any exceptions?

And to answer #4 were there any expections from the past that did win the title in their rookie year, and are their any wrestlers IN THE WWE that havn't won a WWE world Championship that you feel are ready or deserve a title reign as world champ.

1. It depends on the situation. If you build a guy up to be a threat very quickly, as they did with Alberto Del Rio, then a world championship reign becomes very realistic, and creates a new star very quickly. I was happy with the decision to have Edge retain as I'm a big Edge fan and he's been fantastic so far in 2011 (ever since the horrendous Kane feud ended). However, had ADR won the title, I would not have had any sort of complaint. I don't think it would have been too soon, as he has plenty of experience wrestling in Mexico and from the very beginning, was made out to be a main event level competitor. I'm sure he will still get the title in the near future (possibly at Extreme Rules), as he has all the tools necessary to be a strong heel champion, and has been well exposed to the regular SmackDown audience, which means that nobody will be surprised when he gets a hold a title there.

Compare this to Jack Swagger's ill-fated World Heavyweight Championship reign, around this time in 2010. He was a lower midcarder on Raw for a significant period of time before he won Money in the Bank and then subsequently became the champion on a random SmackDown. WWE clearly didn't know what they were doing with this reign, as they changed what had worked about his gimmick and turned him into a generic suit-wearing type. It wasn't very believable because he had gone from being a jobber on Raw to the main guy on SmackDown, and had gotten there by cashing in the MITB. Now, MITB isn't always a bad thing, as evidenced by The Miz. But The Miz was being pushed for months before he got that win, and from where I stand, his championship reign has been a success. Swagger's was not, because he simply was not built up well enough at all.

2. No, the rookie reigns do not ruin the world title prestige. The WWE Championship is as prestigious as ever despite Sheamus' rookie reign in 2009-2010. The World Heavyweight Championship is clearly the secondary title now, but that's more on the booking than the fact that a young guy is holding the title. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that veteran and 11-time champion Edge opened WrestleMania, while the much newer star (Miz) main evented the show. Not only that, but the WHC hasn't main evented a Mania since XXIV, and didn't even really have a chance of doing so since then. The XXV main event was going to be either HHH/Orton or Taker/HBK; XXVI was going to be either Cena/Batista or Taker/HBK II; XXVII was going to be either Cena/Miz or Taker/HHH. This has been a recurring pattern over the years no matter who the champion is. So the prestige of that championship may have lessened as of late, but that should not be blamed on rookie reigns when they are quite clearly not the primary cause.

3. No; on the contrary, the talent should be used to put over the world titles. That's why the title is generally given to whoever is the hottest superstar on each brand at the time. Think about Cena's reign in 2007 and how much it did for the prestige of the WWE title. Every match contested for it was that much more important because of the unprecented reign he was having, and the fact that no one knew who would finally be the one to beat him for it. Now, title matches don't mean as much because they are changed frequently and pretty much anyone can win one. That's another reason why I liked the decision of Edge retaining at Mania; now Del Rio's win could potentially seem even more impressive, if he's able to slow Edge's momentum and defeat him in his own type of match.

4. I listed several above, as not every situation is the same. All possible factors need to be considered before WWE makes the call to give a young superstar the big belt.

 

[xcoN]

I wouldn't mind seeing Del Rio, Christian, Drew, or Cody beating Edge for the WHC because they are somewhat new and fresh wrestlers. Now I wouldn't consider them rookies at all so giving them a WHC run now wouldn't be so bad. I'm an Edge fan as well BUT...11 title reigns is awful. He should have gotten 5 at most. Overrated R-superstar definitely.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Only in extremely rare circumstances should rookies be shot to the top of the WWE as the World Champion. For instance, Brock Lesnar was a freak of nature, and even he dominated and proved why he should be champion before they gave him the belt. But at the time that was one of the quickest rises to the top the industry had ever seen. Fast forward a few years...

Sheamus, Alberto del Rio, and Wade Barrett are three guys that made Raw debut in the last year (or close to it). They have also ALL had World title matches, with Sheamus actually becoming the WWE champion TWICE. You can also make a case that even though Miz spent time "paying his dues", his push came out of nowhere, during a time when nobody took him seriously. People are coming out of the woodwork as threats to the WWE and World title, but they're all starting to burn out shortly after... WWE has forgotten how to build stars and lost all patience. They are shotgunning people into the main event like mad. Remember how big a deal it was when Hulk Hogan lost the WWF title? How about when Randy Savage won the belt? Or when Hogan won it back? Now, how many times has the title changed hands in the past 2 years?

 

[Mexican Mark Henry]

1. They should earn it. Make sure they're ready before you start to push the person. You don't want ratings to plummet. I would have the rookies spend 1-3 years in the mid-card.

2. Yes, a little, but who the fuck cares about prestige? As long as a jobber doesn't win a World Championship, then it shouldn't hurt the prestige of that championship too much.

3. Yes, definitely
It would get them over big time.

4. Yes, if there is a superstar that is really old but also spent lots of years in other places, like Alberto Del Rio, then that person should be pushed as soon as possible so he can spend the majority of his career in the main-event.