Superstars Who Work Better Without A Title

[showstoppaa]

In my opinion there are some people who are just a lot more entertaining when their fued doesn't involve the title. I know this is largely to do with the booking of the programme that they are working, so a rivalry could be just as entertaining over a title, but it just seems with certain people that are so much more interesting without the title involved.

To me Randy Orton is a prime example of this, I'm by no means a mark for the guy, but I do believe he can put on a decent match, and can be pretty entertaining at times. However, when the title's involved I just don't seem to enjoy Randy anywhere near as much. His fued with Christian started off well, but after a while I lost interest because there was nothing that made me really interested in the fued. It was just 'You have the title, I want it, give me another match, etc.'

I've found his recent work with Wade Barret very interesting, simply because there is more to the fued than just fighting over a belt. It's not the most personal fued we've ever seen, but at least the actually have a reason to fight.

Another person I think this about is Alberto Del Rio. When he debuted I was quickly becoming a huge mark for him, I loved his debut programme with Rey Mysterio and I thought he was going to becoe huge, but as soon as the title got involved (I know the booking on both his title runs was terrible and that has turned a lot of fans, myself included off him). As soon as Del Rio began to chase the title it was incredibly repetitive, even before the rumble it was just 'it's my destiny to win' and that was pretty much all his promo work was based on.

So, do you think there are any superstars who are just plain better without the title involved (I can see Cena being a popular answer, that's fine if it's backed up) or do you think it is simply down to the booking and the fact that that title fueds only seem to be based on the belt, and have nothing personal about them?

 

[Cookie14]

I'd agree that Randy Orton is much better when either kept away from the belt or is chasing it as opposed to holding it.
I'd also say that both HH and Undertaker are better when kept away from the titles these days, but that might be because they are almost bigger than the belt, therefore they can't gain anything from actually having the belt.

 

[newc868]

Shawn Michaels was someone, who to me at least, who was amazing in his role without a title and that most of his amazing career and it's highlights are filled not with championship win after championship win but great matches and great feuds.

Is there someone in the WWE who I think would be better off without the title and be on the same level as Shawn Michaels? I think there is only one and that's CM Punk, but there are some sure fire Hall of Famers like Rey Mysterio and if he comes back, Chris Jericho, who function so much better without the main title around their waist.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Jericho fan but I just don't see the need for him to be in the title picture and he can fill the role of Shawn Michaels in that veteran who competes not for the title but for prestige.

The same goes for CM Punk. He's a guy that doesn't need the title to sell a story or make a match. I hope soon he'll be at a level above the WWE Title. One that means he can be in that Shawn Michaels like role. CM Punk for me works better in personal feuds that are all about wanting to make the other guy suffer and I loved the Straight Edge Society idea (not so much the execution).

Just my two cents anyway.

 

[LegendKiller716]

I think John Cena is a prime example of this. I think he is really boring with the belt, but while he is chasing it, or just kept away from it all together, I like him a lot more.

His feud with Nexus was very entertaining, I like the direction they're going with Kane, him trying to get the belt from Miz was real good. I think he gets a little too much heat for being bad in the ring, he's good, he just isn't a "ring general". He just can't carry the match.

 

[LilShippy97_WWE]

LegendKiller716 I think John Cena is a prime example of this. I think he is really boring with the belt, but while he is chasing it, or just kept away from it all together, I like him a lot more

I agree 100% Cena is way better without the title
I also agree with Triple H and Undertaker right NOW just becuase they have done everything, they might as well be the champion of champions.
Shawn Michaels was a good one without the titles. he had personal rivalries like the one with JBL.

 

[keehlnate]

Yes, Randy Orton is good even without the belt. Just look at the Orton-Barrett, Orton-Punk or even Orton-Rhodes. Those feuds doesn't need to revolve around the belt. They should give it to superstars that mostly need it like Mark Henry.

I have to disagree that Cena doesn't need the gold. His career goes by being on the top and be the face of the company. He can't be on the top without the belt. His catchphrase "the champ is here" won't fit to anyone else. John Cena won't be "John Cena" if he didn't win the gold from JBL back in Wrestlemania 21. He won't be on top without his feud with Edge, Batista and Triple H for the WWE title. He won't get a huge fanbase if he didn't defend his title against the big guys such as Umaga, Great Khali, and even Big Show. The Rock vs. John Cena at Wrestlemania 28 won't be the most anticipated main-event in wrestlemania history if John Cena is not a multiple time world champion. Although at this point of his career, like Shawn Michaels, he doesn't need the gold anymore because he's been there and the big gold already served it's purpose.

 

[Da Solo]

Undertaker doesn't really NEED titles in my opinion. I like him better when he's chasing down people who tried to take him out or putting the streak on the line. Given his storied career, he never really needed to be a world title holder all the time, which is why his booking worked out so well in the past couple of years.

 

[Headman]

The Undertaker is my pick. I can't think of a single title feud of his that i've enjoyed (storywise) because honestly, why would he want to be champion? He once said that the belt would bring more souls to him, which I guess makes sense. Instead of chasing souls the superstars would line up willingly to be slaughtered, but they've never really played it out like that. Taker with the belt is just like any other champion. Taker without the belt is the freaking Undertaker!

 

[mrbreezy]

taker.. he doesnt need one
shawn micheals..he is one of the guys that you always loved to cheer for to try and win the title
orton

 

[XXJJ]

CM Punk. His current character is about the "WWE machine" holding him down. It hurts his gimmick that he is champion. IMO they should of screwed him out of the title. It would make him far more interesting.

 

[TempestH]

Shawn Michaels was someone, who to me at least, who was amazing in his role without a title and that most of his amazing career and it's highlights are filled not with championship win after championship win but great matches and great feuds.

Is there someone in the WWE who I think would be better off without the title and be on the same level as Shawn Michaels? I think there is only one and that's CM Punk, but there are some sure fire Hall of Famers like Rey Mysterio and if he comes back, Chris Jericho, who function so much better without the main title around their waist.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Jericho fan but I just don't see the need for him to be in the title picture and he can fill the role of Shawn Michaels in that veteran who competes not for the title but for prestige.

The same goes for CM Punk. He's a guy that doesn't need the title to sell a story or make a match. I hope soon he'll be at a level above the WWE Title. One that means he can be in that Shawn Michaels like role. CM Punk for me works better in personal feuds that are all about wanting to make the other guy suffer and I loved the Straight Edge Society idea (not so much the execution).

Just my two cents anyway.

I think John Cena, if he doesn't turn heel, will become that "Shawn Michaels" guy. Not necessarily ringwork wise, but he'll be just like Michaels in the manner that he's just there to headline and put asses in seats, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

I think most guys are more entertaining when they're not holding the strap. Whether it be United States, World, WWE, etc. There's a thrill in the hunt -in the chase- but when they finally get the belt around their waist, it's time to start pushing the challenger. It's almost as if they stop focussing on what's important, the champion, and we start counting the days until somebody dethrones him. Remember when JBL dominated the WWE title picture before John Cena broke through BECAUSE of him?

I agree with Randy Orton, for the same reason I agree with John Cena. Great in the chase, but no fire once they have the belt. Everyone wants the title, but nobody wants to defend it with passion... I'd say Cody Rhodes is currently the only champion who has held a title for decent length and continued to look great as a champion.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

Well in our eyes, every superstar that reaches huge main-event status is working better without the World Title. Guys above me posted names like Cena, HHH, Undertaker, Orton & Hbk. Chris Jericho is also a guy that, for me, works much better without a World Championship. I don't know why, but Chris never really got me while holding a World Championship.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I may be in the minority here, but I personally think that the championships ALWAYS make the wrestlers and storylines involved more interesting, with very few exceptions. That's just my personal opinion. The whole point of being in pro wrestling is to win championships, and for that reason the title feuds have always stuck out to me more. Even if it's just the generic "Heel doesn't like face. Face doesn't like heel. Challenger wants the Championship." archetype.

The rare times when non-title feuds are more interesting are when it is either a dream match angle or a storyline where something bigger than the title is at stake. A few of Undertaker's streak angles come to mind. Retirement angles. Dream feuds like Cena VS The Rock come to mind as well. The best example of a non-title feud that became more interesting than the world title feuds was Jericho VS Michaels in 2008. That was only a title feud for the last month it was going on, the first 6 months or so it was a non-title feud. The epic promos and matches that stole the show kept me more interested in that feud than any of the title matches. That's really the only example that comes to mind at the moment.... and it STILL ended with a title match that although it didn't NEED, made the feud that much better.

It's more about the storylines and less about the wrestlers themselves for me. Michaels and Cena both have had many excellent non-title feuds. However, adding a championship as another layer to the feud ALWAYS makes it more interesting for me. The championship could just be icing on the cake in already great feud, but it still improves it for me. So even in the case of a legend like Shawn Michaels, every wrestling feud has been better off with the titles involved in my opinion.

 

[Teddy Irving]

I can see why some people say Punk is better without the championship on him especially at the moment with his whole the wwe machine thing, but right now I think him holding the title and claiming the wwe game of hot potato is over works quite well because he is still against the machine saying no matter what they throw at him his in ring ability will stop him from losing the title.
He may not need the title but it does add to his storyline at the moment.

People that work well without a title include:

Orton- I am really enjoying this thing with Barrett at the moment it is being worked well and is entertaining and has nothing to do with a title. In the past he has also had one with Rhodes.

Undertaker- He has the streak at the moment and that is all he needs. Before that he also had the ministry and the respect thing as the american badass.

 

[Spunky]

John Cena without a doubt. When he's around the title most of his feuds are lacking any real story, all we get is either you can't take this from me or im going to take the title to prove im the best.

When Cena isn't around the title picture he becomes a lot more interesting just because creative has to come up with something to make his feuds personal. Just look right now he drops the title too Punk and within a month everyone is talking about Kane and Cena. It's noticable trend, just look at Cena vs Rock at the minute too, the nexus storyline comes to mind too.

 

[Richard Blonoff]

Michaels has always been my favorite wrestler and during his title run in the late 90s when he took on the resident "Freaks and Monsters" of the then WWF it was fun. I think in the span of one summer he defended against Mankind, Vader, and Diesel. It was fun to watch the little underdog beat all odds.

Post rehab/back surgery/born again Shawn did better without the belt, aside from DX's tag title run, because of his personal rivalries

Guys like Orton and Stone Cold always did better as the hunter rather than the hunted. I believe at one point Austin said those exact words himself.

I think heel Triple H was a good champion because he was a good heel but face Triple H worked better without.

Plus I always think the monster heel type guys work better without the belt

 

[Lion's Sacrifice]

Got to go with Orton. He's shown as of late that he doesn't need the title to be relevant. His feuds over the past year have proven that. He had a great feud Punk going into Wrestlemania, then his work with Rhodes and Barrett have been great. Orton gets boring as champ to me, not that he's a bad champion, but he just doesn't appeal to me as champion.

Also Cena is a guy that doesn't need the title to put on a great feud. His work with nexus last year is proof of that. Though Cena is a great champion. He's an even better chaser, though I have a feeling that if we get the a heel turn with him as champ that would be amazing.

Even with that said, I have to agree with Dagger, I love the layer of story telling that the title adds. While you have Cena and Orton who don't need the title you know it's important when they are in the chase. Look at a guy like Triple H. He's at the point where he doesn't need the title but every time he is in the mix the story going on gets that much better. Because then you wonder if he is going to get closer to Flair's record.

While there are guy that don't have to be booked near the title, but the title makes their feuds that much better.

 

[Wald]

I don't think the Undertaker or Triple H need the belt any more, but that said the WWE needs to be aware that if they start some list of wrestlers like HHH, Taker, Cena, Orton etc. that don't need the title than it starts to devalue the belt instantly. Winning that gold needs to be presented as the focus of every single member of the WWE roster

 

[Best in the World 79]

Undertaker never needed the belt. Vince knew he had a fucking brilliant idea with mark calloway. it immediately took off. he beat hogan for the belt in 91. like maybe 2 people beat hogan for the belt then. that made him the man. he went like 6 years without a belt. and was a mainstay and drew and got really loud pops everytime. he is the ultimate character and ultimate professional. unless he was just trying to be a full fledged heel... he was the stone cold of his time(in a sense) you cheered taker no matter what he did. he is the fucking undertaker. people nowadays, especially new fans. go back and watch his debut. watch him beat hogan at survivor series 91. watch his casket promos. watch the crowd reactions from 92-97. the guy was a fucking badass. he, in my opinion, is the GREATEST PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER OF ALL TIME. end of discussion

 

[Walker456]

Well I have 3 guys at the top of my list!

No.1 # John Cena! The guy has held the title like what 12 or 13 times. At this rate Cena is going to beat Flairs 16 times! Having Cena as Champion bores the hell out of me! It's same all the time. " the champ is here" blah blah blah. Then super Cena beats everyone who challenges him until he drops the title but then gets it back!
Cena started to entertain me when he was fueding with Nexus because there was no title involved! Cena don't need the strap to be a huge star because he already is! When he is Champion again I wouldn't mind seeing a heel Cena!

No.2# The Undertaker! The guy is a legacy! 19-0 at wrestlemaina that's better then any title if you ask me me! Taker doesn't need to be a champion to get over with fans. Not only that the title doesn't suit the deadman gimmick.

No.3# HBK! You look at the later part of his WWE run his lat title reign was in 2002 which only lasted 2 months I believe. HBK is one of these guys that was always in the title picture but never won the title! But he never needed too! He was over with fans! In fact he had us in the palm of his hand he could make us cheer him or he could switch it and make s boo him! Plus HBK had been there and done it with Title.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Here's the thing about everyone mentioned so far, they have all held a title. Would their non-title work be as impressive without the rub that the prior holding gives?

I'm gonna go with some classic guys who managed to get over without winning a belt - 'Rowdy' Roddy Piper, 'The Million Dollar Man' Ted DiBiase and Jake 'the Snake' Roberts. These guys were immensely over in whatever they did long before Hot Rod got his IC run, Money Inc had their Tag run and Jake never held anything. I don't believe that the WWe has anyone today that can match this.