How to make a never been champion a world champion?

[mojmass]

In my opinion there are four ways to make that happen:
1)Money in the Bank
2)Plot failure
3)Foolish Booking
4)Casting your fate to the wind
The first one doesn't need any example we almost see that every year.
The second one, it is just a possibility and I don't have any example for that but you know the world it might happen sometime.
The third: I just give you two word you think the rest: Man ... and ... Kind.
But my main topic the 4th one and a good example of that is Sheamus he was just a newcomer when he became WWE champion and not just any champion he defeated John Cena the superstar of that year. and guess what ? He kept one becoming champion again and didn't stop like those who win it by money in the bank and when they lose the title everything is over for them.
So my questions?
1. WWE did this and they got interesting result why not repeat it ?
2. What does it take for a wrestler to become someone like Sheamus who gets this huge attention from above?
3. If they want to do it now who would you pick to win what title ?

 

[Bthegrt1]

The reason why the Celtic warrior was given a chance so early in his career is because of his relationship with HHH. Since they trained together HHH decided to give him a chance and probably was a big influence in him getting a title push.... Also Sheamus has a look that sets him apart from the other wrestlers... This is the type of thing it takes to really stand out

 

[Zeven_Zion]

Even I don't troll this hard.

Here's how you do it. You find someone with talent, you have him face the Champion and then he wins the title. Hooray.

Also, these "ways" you mentioned are not your opinion. That's how it's actually done. It's a real process.

And the WWE put the belts on the people I want to see. Ziggler and Cena. I couldn't stand Rock and I actually like Cena. Since his program with the Rock that guy proved to me he's better than him in a lot of departments. That is, 2013 Cena is better than 2013 Rock.

Rocky is shit now, end of story. Great wrestler, great athlete, looks better than ever but he does not entertain me as well as he used to. Something's missing.

Cena on the other hand is always consistent and deliver something, whatever that is. Ziggles is the best WWE's got I believe. Him and Punk, even though I'm getting a bit tired of Punk. You can only do Punkisms for so long until it's no longer special and fresh. Drop a pipe bomb once, twice, thrice. Then it loses its charm. Dude's wearing off on me but Ziggler isn't.

I knew Ziggler would be amazing since I saw him debut AS Ziggler. Thankfully he is. Unfortunately, he's on SmackDown and he's carrying the lesser belt. But hey, one thing at a time, this is a test run for the WWE Championship.

Last and not least, you suck at starting threads.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

But my main topic the 4th one and a good example of that is Sheamus he was just a newcomer when he became WWE champion and not just any champion he defeated John Cena the superstar of that year. and guess what ? He kept one becoming champion again and didn't stop like those who win it by money in the bank and when they lose the title everything is over for them.

Because Sheamus was heavyly pushed from start. Push, after push. after push. And after all that he is not nearly over as they wanted for him to be. Better examples are Cena, Batista, Orton, Punk or even Bryan or anybody who was gaved a push and stayed completly relevant maineventer because he caused good crowd reaction based on proper storyline and his performance. So you see, you dont need titles to stay relevant, just good push and good reaction. If you need titles for relevancy then you are not that relevant at all.

 

[Papa Pillman]

Does it ever occur to you guys that maybe and maybe it is good to tell this guy what his problem is so that he may avoid it in future instead of criticizing and insulting him.

Well one issue is that you're essentially advocating for Sheamus's initial main event run, even though he and the audience were not ready for it; while at the same time cryptically damning the first title reign of Mick Foley, one of the most likeable and entertaining personalities the business has ever produced, a reign that he deserved and had spent his whole career earning.

Mick Foley had more talent in his pinky than Sheamus has ever possessed. And Foley got over in spite of having an atypical look and style for the WWE, while Sheamus who is rightfully more of an upper-mid carder at best, received his first reign almost entirely due to backstage politics/relationships. And Foley was infinitely more over than any level of support Sheamus has ever achieved, and that is not up for debate, at least not until you call me when every arena that WWE plays for Raw is littered with "Sheamus is God" signs.

And if what you said wasn't a guarded shot at Foley then you should explain clearly what you meant.

 

[mojmass]

And if what you said wasn't a guarded shot at Foley then you should explain clearly what you meant.

I have nothing against Mick Foley and I am one of his fans don't get me wrong and I didn't compared anyone with Sheamus or Foley let alone say he is better than the other or not but there were surely better way to make that happen.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Anyone can be World Champion...the problem is getting the Audience to accept you as Champ... For that you need serious, legit charisma and a character that people believe is worthy of being champion.

Ultimate Warrior had a great initial gimmick but he was a woeful one trick pony both in the ring and on the mic. The gimmick got old quick because he had almost no ability at even the slightest nuance. He failed as champion despite a terrific feud to set him up, a huge win to gain the title, and successful push prior to the World Title win.

Ron Garvin was a much better wrestler than UW but was a bland character with a lackluster promo style. His hard working honest man image made him popular but he lacked the charisma of Dusty Rhodes, who played an almost identical character. Dusty was always believable as both a title contender and champ. Garvin wasnt a bad contender but he was never a guy you really though would win. When he did, despite a great fued and terrific match in the cage no less, no one took him seriously. His bland presentation made him doomed to be seen as the guy the next legit champ was going to beat for the belt.

Those are just two examples of guys who did not excell as champs despite being well known with the audience and having the benefit of very well drawn feuds leading them to impressive wins over clearly established main event level champions. They did not have the talent to be long term champs even though they were successful in their limited capacity in the niche.

Champs also fail when they do not have quality opponents. In 1990 WCW didnt want Ric Flair to overshadow Sting so when Sting won the title they quickly ended his run vs Flair, keeping Flair in a low profile role for a few months before repackaging him as a tag team wrestler, all the while keeping him away from Sting. Unfortunately WCW didnt have much on the roster that fans bought as legit challengers and feuds vs the likes of Sid Justice failed miserably. Before long Sting's initial title reign was ruined and the company was going back to Flair as the flag holder (never knew why the didnt switch to Luger at that point, but that's another story). Luger also failed in his initial run as champ, although he did some of the best work of his career, because the roster was so dilluted by the time he reached the top fans just werent interested enough to really care. Both guys worked hard and were popular with fans though and managed to have succesfull careers moving forward.

Lackluster competition and poor writing also doomed Kevin Nash, who had a near year long run as champ in WWE, remembered mostly for the continuing decline of business and product interest. Fans did connect with Nash as his massive success in WCW proved, WWE just didnt do a good enough job of surrounding him with an interesting product.

Typically fans will not accept someone as a legit champ until they've been around for awhile, earned their stripes so to speak. It was several years before WWE invested in Edge as a top tier championship contender and title holder. Randy Orton however got the push less than two years into his initial big push and fans did not connect with him. Orton also has never done as well playing a fan fav as a heel, a problem that relates to charisma and character presentation on his part.

 

[thebarber]

David Arquette can be World Champion..oh thats right, he was. To become a Wiorld Champion, you need to be onside with the booking team, you need to be available 24/7 for the xcompany, you need to be able to talk sell inring, and have a look or gimmick that is original and sets you apart from the rest. SIMPLE

 

[One to Remember]

OP do you mean never been or never gonna be champion(ship material) a world champion?

You forgot a few though, for example


Vengeance: When a wrestler defends an former champion by taking on his enemies. Even though it was his second WCW title reign, I would say the defeat of other champions who represented WCW and were essentially cut down to size momentarily allowed for Lex Luger's 1997 title reign. Anyone of his caliber could had handed Hollywood Hogan that loss on Nitro though if they were close enough to Flair or Sting before.

Inheritance: When something happens to a wrestler that puts them out of commission and another wrestler closely associated with them feels some of the void as a kind of tribute. A good example is Rey Mysterio rising through the ranks after Guerrero's death.. Another notable example is Kerry Von Erich defeating Flair for the NWA World title at the David Von Erich tribute show..

Piggy backing: Being a part of a team or having strong links to a former or outgoing champion. Christian taking the World title in lieu of Edge's retirement is a good example, even though Christian could win any title in his own right.

Precedence: Being the first of a certain type. Ron Simmons in 1992 becoming the first recognized Black World champion in WCW. The Great Khali as the first WWE World heavyweight champion from India or Superstar Billy Graham as the first heel champion in the WWWF. Eddie Guerrero for smaller wrestlers.

 

[pyrusane]

He kept one becoming champion again and didn't stop like those who win it by money in the bank and when they lose the title everything is over for them.

The mistake you're making is equating winning the title with being the champion, and this quote right here illustrates that point perfectly. There are a myriad of paths people might follow to winning the title, what matters most is what they do as the champion after they've won it. Some of that depends on booking, of course, but a lot of it depends on the wrestler. Take a look at your quote up there, then let's discuss a few names.

The Miz
Jack Swagger
Kane
Daniel Bryan
Rob Van Dam

The names are a few of the people who have won a Money in the Bank briefcase one time. Most of these guys had at least average title reigns, with the exception of Jack Swagger. The key with all of them, however, is that they did nothing to distinguish themselves as a champion, nothing that made their reign stand out in people's memories. RVD had a chance when he used his title win to bring back the ECW title at the same time, but then he got busted pretty much the next day, and his days were numbered. The Miz main evented Wrestlemania against John Cena, but other than that his reign is largely forgettable. Kane didn't need the title when he won it, and it showed. Daniel Bryan had a nice little run with the belt, but the most memorable aspect of his reign was losing the title in 18 seconds at Wrestlemania.

Let's look at a couple more names.

Edge
CM Punk

Their wins were memorable, their cash-ins were memorable, and their reigns were memorable. Hell, Edge's first title reign was only three weeks long, but it brought us the live sex celebration and the birth of the Rated R Superstar gimmick. The element that sets these two apart from all of the other winners is the fact that they didn't just win the title, they capitalized on that momentum to take their character to the next level. Prior to Edge winning MitB the first time, he was considered an upper midcard guy who could sniff around the main event scene if needed. Now he is remembered as a top heel, and a hall of famer. CM Punk used his title wins as opportunities to transform his character as well.

When Sheamus won his first title, he had been booked as this unstoppable monster, yet he won the title in a fluke victory and then kept it because of Cena's ongoing issues with Nexus. He was never really booked as a strong champion, and he was still too green to make something of the opportunity on his own. Mick Foley, as Mankind, is a totally different story. He held the WWE Title for a combined total of 36 days, but we remember him as a 3-time champion. He made each of his title wins feel special, and they completed his character. It was his own version of the "boyhood dream."

In January of 1984, the Iron Sheik needed to defend the title, and the former champion Bob Backlund couldn't compete. The match went on anyway, with Backlund being replaced by a young Hulk Hogan, who would win the title and go on to hold it for over four years, changing the landscape of professional wrestling in the process. It's not about how you win the title, it's about what you do as the champion...

 

[One to Remember]

In January of 1984, the Iron Sheik needed to defend the title, and the former champion Bob Backlund couldn't compete. The match went on anyway, with Backlund being replaced by a young Hulk Hogan, who would win the title and go on to hold it for over four years, changing the landscape of professional wrestling in the process. It's not about how you win the title, it's about what you do as the champion...

I somewhat disagree with that. Some people are known not for the content of their reigns but the holding of the title itself. Ron Garvin and Kerry Von Erich as NWA champion are good examples. Stan "The Man" Stasiak, and the Ultimate Warrior are good examples of that, or Tommy Dreamer as ECW champion or Yokozuna and Ron Simmons..

And what are you talking about with the Iron Sheik? He wasn't gonna drop the title back to Backlund he was the transitional champion to provide a buffer between Backlund and Hogan to not destroy Backlund. No different then Ivan Koloff serving as a buffer between Sammartino and Morales..

 

[pyrusane]

I somewhat disagree with that. Some people are known not for the content of their reigns but the holding of the title itself. Ron Garvin and Kerry Von Erich as NWA champion are good examples. Stan "The Man" Stasiak, and the Ultimate Warrior are good examples of that, or Tommy Dreamer as ECW champion or Yokozuna and Ron Simmons.. .

You're supporting my point, not disputing it. How much relevance does Ronnie Garvin really hold? He's the Jack Swagger of his era. And Kerry Von Erich was a champion in his father's territory, but beyond that he is simply another cautionary tale from the world of wrestling. I can't comment on Stan Stasiak, not familiar enough with his work, but Ultimate Warrior is a great example of a guy whose legacy would only be slightly diminished if he hadn't won the title. Don't get me wrong, Hogan/Warrior was a great feud and an outstanding title match, historically if not technically, but Warrior is one of those rare figures that leaves a lasting impression regardless.

Ultimately, with all of those guys that you mentioned, do you put any of them in the same category as the guys that I used as examples of people who made their championship reign meaningful? They are guys that won the title, yes, but my point was that there are those we remember for winning a title, but the ones that have a lasting impact are the ones who do something with their reign after they win it.

And what are you talking about with the Iron Sheik? He wasn't gonna drop the title back to Backlund he was the transitional champion to provide a buffer between Backlund and Hogan to not destroy Backlund. No different then Ivan Koloff serving as a buffer between Sammartino and Morales...

I'm talking kayfabe here, sport. Obviously Sheik was a transitional champion, I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. The storyline for this switch, however, was that Backlund got injured (or he might have been sick, I don't remember which, just that he had to go to the hospital) and they needed someone to fill in for him. That someone was Hulk. This was the storyline they went with for the change. I wasn't suggesting that this was real, because I understand the difference between reality and storyline. I just didn't think I had to spell that out for everyone else.

 

[tvcolosi]

Best way I think is MItB, almost all the guys holding the case had never won a world title before, and that gives that guy a buzz about him that any second he could be champ. These are the guys that had the Case and had won a World title...

Punk had won it 2 years in a row, but there was still a lot of buzz for him since his 1st cash in/title run were booked to make him look weak.

Mr. Kennedy/Edge, Edge cashed in 24 hours after taking it from a presumed injured Mr. K.

Ziggler, technically had a 45 minute reign when Vickie stripped Edge, then Edge won it back.

And John Cena, that was done to help pop the Raw 1000 rating even higher, and he is one of the few that could cash in and lose but it wouldn't hurt his aura, so I get that one.

Correct me if I am wrong (and if I know this site, you guys will) wasn't the angle last year that the WWE title case was in a match with all former WWE champs, that's how/why Miz was added during the PPV. Vice Versa, the WHC match was all guys who had never won a world title. But that was tweaked later to add Christian and Ziggler (even though he has said he doesn't count his first run.)

That should be the stip for all the MItB matches, one of them have former world champs, and the other has no former champs.
Like do a WHC match with Del Rio, Swagger, Barrett, Bryan, Shemus, Show, Henry, and Orton. All former WHC's

Then the WWE title match with Cody, Sandow, Kidd if healthy, Kofi, Casaro, Barrett, Ryback, and 1 2 or all 3 members of the Sheild.

 

[lowandmighty]

First of all I liked when mankind became champion because it helped build up his feud with The Rock and that was one of the best title feuds of all time in my opinion.

As for why Sheamus was given the opportunity to be champion, well I have a theory:

Vince McMahon's father (who was also named Vince McMahon) had this insane dream that an Irishmen would be the star of his company. He wanted it to be so because of his own Irish blood.
Infact, Vince McMahon's father wanted Hulk Hogan to be an Irish character and dye his hair red. The reason Hulk Hogan was given the name Hogan by Vince McMahon Sr. is because it's an Irish name.

So my theory is Vince wanted to make good on his old dads wish to have an Irish champion. He did it too, red hair and all.

Sheamus actually worked though and is a good all round wrestler, thats what sets him apart from all the other "surprise" champions. I think he should get another run too, I like Sheamus.
He's also a good sport in real life, I've seen him on Conan a couple of times.

 

[HashtagMax7]

You need to build a star, Not to just push them straight away like they did with HHH's best m8 Sheamo.
People like DZ and CMPunk built their legacy and guys like Fandango/Johnny Curtis are building their legacy.
A good example of this is Cesaro, He will be in the main event scene by WM30, But they are Building him.

 

[Septumus]

A solid steady build, good memorable feud(s), a chance to let them cut some promo's and to let them work out the details of their character with the writers. If the person/wrestler playing the role can feel the character out, it can help him portray and become the character. If the wrestler doesn't care about the character, why should we?

 

[Mustang Sally]

Three ways that occur:

-The Hulk Hogan/John Cena Method: Star power. Charisma. You can see it from the beginning. No matter what program is used, no matter if he isn't the greatest technical wrestler. The guy has simply got it.....just take the horse and ride it.

-The Jack Swagger Method: They take the guy and almost immediately install him as world champion. Fortunately, it very rarely happens. The factors that go into the decision are usually indecipherable; who the hell knows why Creative got the idea this guy was a can't-miss star? In Swagger's case, it was a foolish call.

-The Dolph Ziggler Method: Take a guy whose future can't yet to be determined and make him a star. Have Vince McMahon say to his staff: "We will be the ones who tell the fans who they're going to like" and then set out to make it happen by pushing the living hell out of the guy/gal. In Dolph's case, they chose him as a future star and figured they could make it so by giving him so much exposure that many fans would interpret that Dolph must be terrific.....otherwise, why would we see him on TV so often? If you choose this course, you'd better wind up installing him as champion.....otherwise, you've invested a lot of time and effort for nothing.

I'm sure there are other ways to make a first-time champion, but those three stick out.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

Watch how they booked Austin or Rock in 1997 or 1998... It's not rocket science.
I feel like the WWE bookers need a history lesson by watching the history of their own product. Hell, watch Bret in 1992. Or Shawn in in 1995. That's how you build an upper midcard into a World Champion.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

There's one very solid way to make a never-been a World Champion: listen to what the fans want. And I'm not saying give the IWC everything they want, but really listen to what the fans - as a collective bunch - are actually saying.

The problem with the Money in the Bank is that, for the most part, it requires no listening skills. Rather, WWE gives the guy they want to push, and try to force the fans to see their way of thinking. It worked for the Miz - he came out of nowhere and drew heat so well they ended up keeping him through WrestleMania. But what about Alberto del Rio? When he was actually hot, they didn't pull the trigger. When he lost steam, they tried to force him on people and it killed not only his push, but CM Punk's momentum in the process.

One of the times I distinctly remember the WWE listening to the fans and reacting to them, instead of the other way around, was with John Cena. Nothing more than a hot midcard commodity, but the fans REALLY got behind him. So WWE tested a few things out, tried some things with him, and he kept taking off. And then they put him up against the biggest heel champion in almost a decade - John Layfield - and it took. First with the US Championship and Orlando Jordan, and then moving on up to the big time. I remember their match at WrestleMania not being very good, but it was still one of the best moments of my teenage years.

THere's no scientific method to exactly how to put the belt on a new guy. Just listen to how crowds are reaction, and go with it. Pull back if you need to, take a few risks. Hell, they have 7 hours of programming a week without NXT and Superstars - they can afford to make a few mistakes. As the old adage goes - if you build it, they will come. Listen to the fans, and they will guide you where you need to go. You think the fans would have made David Arquette the WCW Champion? Killed Punk's momentum for del Rio? Turned Savage heel to keep Hogan on top?