The WWE Championship 'Bump in the Road'

[bioshock]

The WWE has always had the kayfabe rule of defending the championship every 30 days, while being a made up rule (not always enforced), it for the most part has held up, its some times broken when the title isn't defended between Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania, I think HBK was the first in 1998 due to injury (just an example). But in most part the WWE title has been on the line once every 30 days for the past 20+ years on PPV or Raw, again some times its gone past 30 days.

But during this summer in 2014 the belt was stripped from Bryan because he couldn't defend the title within the 30 days due to injury, again its a kayfabe rule thats been around for nearly 30 years in WWE.

The belt was won by Cena at MITB, defended a month later in a four way, and at Summerslam against Brock Lesnar, Brock won and defended the belt a month later at Night of Champions when most assumed he would lose the belt to either Cena or Rollins.

After Brock retained the belt most assumed he would be back for HIAC to defend the belt. With the DQ finish vs Cena, and Rollins attempt to win the belt, the writing was on the wall for Cena vs Brock in the cell, or a feud with Rollins. Everything was in place to need the match inside a HIAC.

Instead only a few showings from Heyman following Night of Champions, and no Brock Lesnar, and no WWE title matches since Night of Champions, which was almost 90 days ago.

So the "bump in the road" do you think WWE had other plans in place with Brock dropping the belt or to have Brock compete at HIAC or Survivor Series, along with the part that Bryan might of played in this. Did Brock keeping the belt this long have something to do with Bryan being unable to return when they thought he would.

So what is your theory? Do you think WWE had another plan, and that this was the worst case scenario, maybe its Brock who was suppose to defend or drop the belt but held up the WWE instead? Or what about Rollins and the MITB, the cash in attempts have been a huge part of WWE tv since Edge first won the MITB, so we lose the drama of the cash in without a champion on tv, again another "bump in the road".

 

[Jack-Hammer]

This has been brought up before and it's just a glaring example of Vince just sort playing shuck & jive with kayfabe whenever it suits his purpose. Of course, Vince McMahon being Vince McMahon, he'll just gloss over the fact that Lesnar goes for 3 or 4 months in between title defenses while keeping the 30 day rule in effect for when Lesnar drops the title and expect everyone to go along with it as if nothing out of the ordinary had ever taken place.

Sometimes, Vince doesn't mind big gaping holes in logic if he believes the payoff's worth it and, to be honest, a lot of fans don't mind either if the payoff actually does turn out to be great. If WrestleMania season, as a whole, and WrestleMania itself turns out to be as strong next year as this year's was, the I don't think most fans will particularly care about the 30 day rule. We'll be happy because we'll have gotten great build up to a great show that delivered the sort of matches and moments we were hoping for.

 

[Zycho32]

I tend to think it's a Worst Case Scenario- that WWE lost too much money in these subsequent months, especially where the Network is concerned, and as such lacked the financial fortitude to keep Brock appearing.

And like Jack says, fans largely aren't going to care about the '30 day rule', as that's for the purists and *coughthoseofuswithnolifecough* to obsess over. (Up until after Survivor Series, I held that it was largely the Authority shirking said rule to keep Brock on top, at least until all the defiant challengers standing up to them were crushed) They largely are going to care if the story being told is singing the right tune and that's about it.

Had there been more money, it's possible you'd have seen Brock on every PPV and it's also possible he'd have moved on from Cena by now and would be busy dismantling all contenders and pretenders.

 

[kadroan]

I think creative just think their audience isn't that smart so they didn't make it a priority to enforce the rule.

Thankfully Cena was healthy and he managed to carry the WWE this past Fall. Brock's absence definitely gave Rollins, Rusev and Harper an opportunity to shine as the top heels of the company.

 

[Navi]

The WWE has always had the kayfabe rule of defending the championship every 30 days, while being a made up rule (not always enforced), it for the most part has held up, its some times broken when the title isn't defended between Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania, I think HBK was the first in 1998 due to injury (just an example). But in most part the WWE title has been on the line once every 30 days for the past 20+ years on PPV or Raw, again some times its gone past 30 days.

But during this summer in 2014 the belt was stripped from Bryan because he couldn't defend the title within the 30 days due to injury, again its a kayfabe rule thats been around for nearly 30 years in WWE.

The belt was won by Cena at MITB, defended a month later in a four way, and at Summerslam against Brock Lesnar, Brock won and defended the belt a month later at Night of Champions when most assumed he would lose the belt to either Cena or Rollins.

After Brock retained the belt most assumed he would be back for HIAC to defend the belt. With the DQ finish vs Cena, and Rollins attempt to win the belt, the writing was on the wall for Cena vs Brock in the cell, or a feud with Rollins. Everything was in place to need the match inside a HIAC.

Instead only a few showings from Heyman following Night of Champions, and no Brock Lesnar, and no WWE title matches since Night of Champions, which was almost 90 days ago.

So the "bump in the road" do you think WWE had other plans in place with Brock dropping the belt or to have Brock compete at HIAC or Survivor Series, along with the part that Bryan might of played in this. Did Brock keeping the belt this long have something to do with Bryan being unable to return when they thought he would.

So what is your theory? Do you think WWE had another plan, and that this was the worst case scenario, maybe its Brock who was suppose to defend or drop the belt but held up the WWE instead? Or what about Rollins and the MITB, the cash in attempts have been a huge part of WWE tv since Edge first won the MITB, so we lose the drama of the cash in without a champion on tv, again another "bump in the road".

Yea I thought it was kind of strange that Daniel Bryan was stripped because of the 30 day clause and Lesnar as managed to bypass it completely. It made sense to take the title off Bryan as he's been out for months, and no date for him to come back. He's possibly looking at more surgery, that will keep him out for most of next year as well. But to take it off one for that reason and let Lesnar do this is ******ed.

The WWE title should be at least challenged once a month on the PPV, as it has in the past. So far since Lesnar won the title, the only match he's had is with Cena, and the next match will be with Cena again. It is a complete waste of he's championship run, and there is no end in sight for him to have another competitor. Well unless they decide to put him up against Reigns at Mania.

I think in this case creative has been paddling around with no oars in the water, and they really don't have any clue how to solve this. Vince said that he thinks Lesnar is a special attraction and should only be seen every once in awhile. That's all well and good, but don't give the "special attraction" the reason that most are there working day and day out for.

I wouldn't call this a bump in the road, I would call it a huge pothole that the champ and the title have disappeared into. Now between Mania and the next MITB, Rollins either has to cash in or lose the chance, so whoever wins at Mania isn't going to have a long title run. Talk about predictable.

 

[CalciferBoheme]

Did they mention the 30 days with Bryan, or just that he was hurt? I can't remember and that could make a big difference in how they're currently running things with Brock.

That said, I still think he should have worked Survivor Series. two 2 month gaps would have been better than a single four month gap between matches. Of course, I also wish he'd wrestle someone other than Cena, but that's a different issue.

 

[Navi]

Did they mention the 30 days with Bryan, or just that he was hurt? I can't remember and that could make a big difference in how they're currently running things with Brock.

That said, I still think he should have worked Survivor Series. two 2 month gaps would have been better than a single four month gap between matches. Of course, I also wish he'd wrestle someone other than Cena, but that's a different issue.

Stephanie made a huge point of saying that they would strip the title off him because the WWE universe deserved to have a fighting champion. She never actually came out and said it was because of any 30 day clause, just that if he wasn't able to defend the title he didn't deserve to still retain it.

We usually see a title match at each and every PPV, and other than the Lesnar run, I don't remember a time recently when we haven't. Brock's contract states he is only to be used sparingly and putting the title on someone who will only be working a few dates was stupid. They knew this would happen but did it anyway.

 

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

I support the idea of Lesnar as Champion and I think booking him sparingly made sense given his UFC background. It plays up his legitimacy as a fighter and creates a big fight feel for his Title defenses. The 30 day rule thing doesn't really bother me, because we saw Heyman shake hands with Stephanie and Triple H so I assumed that the Authority was like willing to overlook some things with Lesnar as their Champion. They're heels so it works. All that being said, I think he has been used a little bit too sparingly, and has ultimately been booked incorrectly.

I assumed we would see him defend the belt at Night of Champions, and that he may miss Hell In A Cell. But I was okay with that because I knew they had the Cell as the selling point (CELLING POINT, HA) and they could put a spotlight on the personal feud between Ambrose and Rollins. I figured Brock's next defense would be at Survivor Series. It's one of the major PPVs, so it would be a no brainer to have your World Champion there. Then I assumed he would miss TLC but again it would be okay because you'd have the gimmick matches as a selling point and you could have a stip in one of the TLC matches related to the Rumble or something, whether it be a title shot at the PPV or the coveted 30th (40th?) spot in the Rumble itself.

So Brock beat Cena at SummerSlam, in decisive fashion, and I awaited the rematch at Night of Champions. Lesnar should have been the clear winner again, to solidify his dominance, but instead they did a dumb finish involving a Seth Rollins run-in, and then played up the fact that Cena "had Lesnar beat". I brushed it off at the time saying that they must have done the run-in to set up the huge final match between Cena and Lesnar inside Hell in a Cell next month. Made sense.

But that didn't happen. Instead Cena feuded with Rollins for a week before eventually ending up in a match with Randy Orton to determine who would get the next shot at Lesnar's belt. So I said to myself, okay, the winner of this match will face Brock at Survivor Series because it's the next major PPV. Since Survivor Series is in St. Louis I could see Orton beating Cena then getting a TItle shot in his home town. It would be a new opponent for Lesnar, and they were playing up a potential face turn for Orton anyways. Made sense.

Then the reports came out that Lesnar's next defense would probably be at the Rumble, and Cena went over Orton to pretty much confirm that fact. I tried to brush it off by saying they were gonna have the big 5 on 5 match for control of the company as their main event, and that's what ended up happening, but I still think it was far too long between Lesnar's Title defenses. The bottom line is that he should've been there at Survivor Series.

So no we're in the shit situation we have now. After ending the Streak, Lesnar has faced the same opponent three times and that's it. Why not mix it up and get more people involved with him? Especially since you have him for such a limited time and you want to make the most of him while he's here. I'm a John Cena guy, and I've generally been a fan of his matches with Lesnar, but it's redundant at this point. Having Lesnar beat Cena decisively and then move on would have had a much greater impact in the long run.

The plan should have been that Lesnar beats Cena in the rematch at Night of Champions, then beats Orton in St. Louis at Survivor Series. Orton would start to go face in the build-up to Survivor Series and would RKO Heyman on the final RAW before the PPV. At the Rumble, Lesnar beats Ambrose in a some sort of No Disqualification Match, where Ambrose takes a crazy beating but ends up walking out of the arena to a huge ovation, the returnign BRyan or the returning Reigns wins the Rumble Match to face Lesnar at WrestleMania and finally beat him for the Title. Rollins would align with Heyman and cash in MITB on whoever beat Lesnar for the belt, thereby setting up your next angle.

 

[Dilligaf]

Paul Heyman says Brock is the "reigning, defending" WWEWHC, errr.....correct me if im wrong but wont RR be only his 2nd defence?

This "Special Attraction" bullshit that Vince keeps on sprewing about Brock Lesnar, Sting, Batista etc...etc.... is it now the case that the WWEWHC title match is now part of the "Special Attraction" rule & only comes once in a while.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

Logic is irrelevant in the WWE, and it always has been. It's been a weakness for them for a long time, IMO. I think the original plan was for Bryan to carry the title to Summer Slam, and drop it to Lesnar after being absolutely destroyed. In practical terms, Cena filled the same role Bryan was to play. Cena would eventually get his shot against Lesnar, but I think the plan all along was for Lesnar to take the title, and then start his "once in a blue moon" title defenses, which I think has largely worked. I think the only problem with the plan is that Lesnar and Heyman being off of TV for long stints cause people to forget about them. I think should've done some vignettes / interviews with Lesnar, showing him training, having interviews about his potential challengers, and intersperse them through the weeks of RAW, just to keep people thinking that he's out there...he's just getting ready for his next match.