Which Heavyweight Championship run is worse?

[GetTheTables]

Brock Lesnar or Jinder Mahal? They are both pretty bad and I don't know if one is any better than the other. Brock Lesnar has held the Universal Championship for nearly 7 months and has, if my memory is correct, only defended it three times. He defeated Samao Joe, won a Fatal 4 Way against Joe, Roman, and Braun, and then defeated Braun in a one on one competition. And as we know, he will not be defending his title at Survivor Series. Chances are we won't see him defend a title for the rest of the year, which means three title defenses in around nine months. His quality of matches is nothing to write home about either, the man does about three or four variations of the same move.

On the other hand, Jinder Mahal is...well...Jinder Mahal. He shouldn't even be near the WWE Championship that has been held by the likes of Hulk Hogan, Bret Hart, Stone Cold, and the Rock. He has held the WWE title for just over 5 months and has defeated the likes of Randy Orton and Shinsuke Nakamura. Up until his latest defense against Shinsuke, he had yet to win a match cleanly.

As much as Brock pisses me off (never defending the title and not even helping out at TLC), his reign has to be better just because he is more believable as a champion. At this time last year we had Kevin Owens and AJ Styles as the respective champions. Lord how I miss those days.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Great topic. Both are bad for completely different reasons.

Jinder never deserved the title to begin with and he has been really lousy as World Heavyweight Champion. Sure he's there and defends the thing, but he's not believable in the role. How can anyone believe that Jinder could ever defeat Shinsuke Nakamura and Randy Orton? We get it. Vince wants to create a fanbase in India with Jinder. This experiment better go well because it has cost the opportunity for other guys who actually do deserve the spot. Imagine if Owens, Nakamura, Styles, or even Sami could be in that main event spot. Nope we are stuck with someone who is completely unworthy. And BORING. The only redeeming factor in Jinder's push is laughing at his sidekicks when his challengers attack them.

Then we have Brock. The opposite issue of Jinder's. While Jinder is there and sucks, Brock IS believable as a final boss type of heel. The big problem with Brock is that he's never there. Heyman has no right to call Brock the "reigning DEFENDING" champion due to Brock rarely ever defending. We are going to go for 4 months without a Universal Championship defense from the looks of it. Absolutely bogus. I don't dislike Brock being the champion. He had a great match with Joe and the feud with Strowman was also good, until the match itself. My problem is the lack of title opportunities.

We truly are picking our poison here. Ultimately, I pick Brock's reign as the worse one. As awful as Jinder is, he still defends the title monthly as a World Champion is supposed to. Brock shouldn't get special treatment as the exemption to the rule. Within kayfabe the whole point of being a wrestler is to become a World Champion. Those who hold the World Championships should be forced to defend them or be stripped of the title. Brock should have lost the title a month after Wrestlemania.

 

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

This is a completely ridiculous question. Mahal is clearly worse.

The most improtant attribute for a champion to have is credibility. Being champion means you're supposed to be the best, and Lesnar is believable as the best. Mahal being WWE Champion now is like Al Snow being WWE champion in 1999.

Brock Lesnar is a main event. He elevates the importance of the Universal Title, and generates an awesome atmosphere for his matches. Mahal makes the WWE Title seem meaningless. Lesnar is by far the biggest star on RAW, babyface or heel, and you can name multiple guys that are more over and more deserving than Mahal on SmackDown. Styles, Nakamura, Orton, Owens, Roode are all more credible and more believable. Given the same push as Mahal, Rusev would be way more believable as well.

Mahal has a great look, and I'm a fan of his promos, but the way he had the title thrown on him out of nowhere did him no favors. I'm completely against the idea of "growing into" a world title in wrestling. That's what the IC Title and US Title are for, and Mahal would have been a perfect US champ, especially with his gimmick. A world title should be held by one of two people on your roster: the top babyface or the top heel, until a wrestler gets over enough to usurp one of those spots, he shouldn't get the belt. That's how you protect a title and make it matter.

In the last 7 years, only 4 guys have held the IWGP Heavyweight Title. There's been more than 4 reigns obviously, but it's been passed between 4 guys. Styles, Okada, Tanahashi, Naito. The top guys. All of them were either top heel or top babyface. Okada and Tanahashi were the aces of the company, Styles was the top heel leader of an invading faction in Bullet Club, Naito only got it when he evolved his character and became a number one heel instead of a lukewarm babyface.

Notice how the IWGP Heavyweight Title actually feels important. That's a big reason why.

 

[GetTheTables]

This is a completely ridiculous question. Mahal is clearly worse.

The most improtant attribute for a champion to have is credibility. Being champion means you're supposed to be the best, and Lesnar is believable as the best. Mahal being WWE Champion now is like Al Snow being WWE champion in 1999.

Brock Lesnar is a main event. He elevates the importance of the Universal Title, and generates an awesome atmosphere for his matches. Mahal makes the WWE Title seem meaningless. Lesnar is by far the biggest star on RAW, babyface or heel, and you can name multiple guys that are more over and more deserving than Mahal on SmackDown. Styles, Nakamura, Orton, Owens, Roode are all more credible and more believable. Given the same push as Mahal, Rusev would be way more believable as well.

Mahal has a great look, and I'm a fan of his promos, but the way he had the title thrown on him out of nowhere did him no favors. I'm completely against the idea of "growing into" a world title in wrestling. That's what the IC Title and US Title are for, and Mahal would have been a perfect US champ, especially with his gimmick. A world title should be held by one of two people on your roster: the top babyface or the top heel, until a wrestler gets over enough to usurp one of those spots, he shouldn't get the belt. That's how you protect a title and make it matter.

In the last 7 years, only 4 guys have held the IWGP Heavyweight Title. There's been more than 4 reigns obviously, but it's been passed between 4 guys. Styles, Okada, Tanahashi, Naito. The top guys. All of them were either top heel or top babyface. Okada and Tanahashi were the aces of the company, Styles was the top heel leader of an invading faction in Bullet Club, Naito only got it when he evolved his character and became a number one heel instead of a lukewarm babyface.

Notice how the IWGP Heavyweight Title actually feels important. That's a big reason why.

First off, great username. Also, at least Al Snow got a reaction from the crowd. I'll give you this, the question does seem ridiculous on paper. But I just can't get behind Brock being the Universal Champion. Brock is a huge star but they haven't done him favors with the squash loss to Goldberg and instant Rumble elimination. He's still just 1-2 against Goldberg and I can't recall the last time a Brock Lesnar match really stood out.

And unfortunately we already know he's going to hold the the title for another five or six months until Mania. If we're lucky we will see two title defenses form now until then (Just five in a calendar year.) I just think it is disrespectful to the guys that actually work full time and give everything they have to the company. They have bent over backwards to accommodate Brock while others get shoved aside.

Brock is more believable. Brock is more talented. And Brock is definitely a bigger star. However, and it sounds crazy to say, Jinder works much harder. As ridiculous as him being WWE Champion is, and its laughable, he has actually work incredibly hard. Meanwhile, Brock alienates himself from the rest of the locker room and refuses to give his all in matches, as if saying "We're lucky just to be able to see him perform."

 

[Spidey Revivey]

I thought the point of a heel champion was to put the babyface over. If that is the case, Mahal is going to do a much better job than Lesnar.

Brock is going to let someone already built to beat him, beat him. Then fuck off for a while, maybe indefinitely. There's nothing immediate about Brock as champion. If he loses, so what? Now we'll have an active champion? But when Mahal loses, there's plenty to speculate. It just seems there's more to gain from beating Mahal then there is Brock to me. More emotion to be had on all sides. I want to know what happens to India's interest in WWE when Mahal loses. I want to know where Mahal goes after being a jobber-turned-WWE Champion-now former Champion, and I want to know who it will be to do it. The narrative around Mahal is more interesting than Lesnar's, as Lesnar has done his song and dance way too often now for me to care.

Brock Lesnar's run is the worst for me as it hasn't allowed me to give a damn about the Universal title since it was created. I'm more invested in Kalisto's Cruiserweight run than I am in his.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

Considering that I like Brock Lesnar's title reign I would have to say Jinder Mahal's title reign is worse.

Now I am not going to discuss credibility here because we all know Lesnar wins this by a landslide.

As for the actual title reign. Jinder Mahal's reign is boring, his matches have been below average, he cuts the same promos, and even if he's getting better it's still not good enough where he should be the featured star on Smackdown.

A lot of people criticize Lesnar's title reign since he doesn't defend it in every PPV and his matches tend to be quite short. I would like to defend the two criticisms. For the title not being defended in every PPV remember there was a time when the World Title was defended less frequently and this made actual title defenses more special. And that what has happened to Lesnar he's made his title defenses feel more special. Sure it has to do a lot with his limited schedule but still it makes Lesnar's appearance a big time moment. As for his matches being too short, yes I agree it's a problem. While his short matches with Goldberg is fine I do feel like his matches with Joe and Braun could have used another 5 mins. But I am not too annoyed with this since it gives the match a bit more realism and it's a quality the WWE could use more of these days.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

Brock Lesnar's run would have been great had he been there to defend the belt at least every couple of months. But he's not. As the posters above me said, he will have had 3 titles defenses, from which the two were good and one of them underperformed, at a span of 9 months. And it sucks because watching Brock with the belt around him feels great and legit. The format would have been simple really:

Payback: #1 contender's match
Extreme Rules: 1st defense
GBoF: #1 contender's match for Summerslam
Summerslam: 2nd defense
No Mercy: 3rd defense - SSlam rematch
TLC: #1 contender's match
SSeries: 4th defense
December PPV: #1 contender's match
Royal Rumble: 5th defense
FastLane: #1 contender's match
Wrestlemania: 6th and final defense

It's not great, but at least you'd feel the physical presence of the belt more often. His reigns is better than his first one back in 2014-15 though, where he had only ONE successful defense. But he's not there and the title isn't even mentioned on TV.

One the other hand you got Jinder a champion that nobody wants to see holding a belt, but he's at least there to defend it. Man it's like you have two polar opposites.

So, what makes a reign memorable and good? You need to judge the start, the in-between and the ending.
Both Mahal and Lesnar had a great start. The first one shocked the world and the second one defeated Goldberg at Wrestlemania. Their in-between is a tie for me, they both suck, but at least Mahal is trying. What about the ending though?

Well, Brock is gonna drop this to Roman. The whole world knows it, even my grandma knows it. 4th WM main event in a row for Roman, yet another Wrestlemania ending with hate or apathy and predictability. That's a mediocre ending.

Mahal though, will either give Styles his first babyface run as a champ or Cena his 17th reign. These are both moments to get excited about, so Mahal gets the vote for me.

Both had a great start. Lesnar's legitemacy and no-title defense equals Mahal un-legitimacy and constant title defenses and his hard work, but Mahal's reign will lead to a more exciting and more unpredictable moment. It all could change and Lesnar might not drop the belt to a face Roman Reigns at WM 34, but if it doesn't, then Mahal gets my vote.

Plus Mahal putting the belt on Mahal, actually lets Styles to grow as a babyface, lets Owens grow as a heel and also gave an opportunity to Shinsuke Nakamura at the main event. It was a risky bussiness move. I'll give them those at least.
What did Lesnar accomplish? Nothing. We got a dream match between him and Joe that never really reached the expectation of that dream match, he didn't really do anything for Strowman, he's still the same Strowman he was before that match. All he really did was just feed on Strowman's hype and he will most likely feed on the Demon's hype as well, before losing it to Roman, and then we'll have to sit through yet another reign that not many want to see.

Mahal for the vote.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Jinder Mahal and it's not even remotely close. Jinder Mahal may very well go down as the worst WWE Champion in history and that's something that will only be exacerbated if the title is kept on him all the way to WrestleMania.

That's not to say that Lesnar's run doesn't have faults, because it most certainly does, but there are redeeming values that Lesnar has that Jinder simply doesn't. Lesnar has credibility that was built from nearly 2 years in WWE from 2002-2004 and while he wasn't there for long, he left a major mark on the company that had a lot of people talking about him long after he left, a lot never even stopped talking about him, because Lesnar was a genuine freak of nature in those days. It wasn't just that Lesnar was so dominant, it's that he was so dominant and put on so many fantastic matches with so many different opponents. Lesnar was probably the physical embodiment of the perfect professional wrestler in Vince McMahon's eyes. Want proof? Brock Lesnar became the WWE Champion for the very first time 3 months to day of his television debut. Lesnar was big, he was strong, he was athletic, he had an amazing look and was a genuine marvel to behold really. Lesnar's problem was that the guy had no heart, no real passion for wrestling; he loved all the money he was making but wasn't at all happy about the fact that he was having to work his ass off for every penny he got. I think that he believed that it'd be a cake walk, that, like many other athletes before him, pro wrestling would be easy money only to find out the opposite.

When it comes to Jinder Mahal, there's simply nothing there. Jinder is only WWE Champion because Vince McMahon hopes that it will help lead to WWE expanding its audience into India. Jinder is being pushed not because of his ability, but because of his skin color and ethnicity; in some ways, when you get right down to it, Jinder Mahal is the first affirmative action WWE Champion. Jinder's not a good wrestler whether it's in the ring, on the mic or as a character; watching him wrestle in matches is often like watching paint dry, his promos are the embodiment of "if you've seen/heard one, you've seen/heard 'em all" and there's just nothing remotely interesting about his character. I've said it lots of times: at the very, very, very most, on his best day, Jinder Mahal is an average professional wrestler with a fantastic physique.

Lesnar's flaws as champion have been the fact that he often doesn't come around and he's no longer the dynamic in-ring performer he was 15 years ago. In 2016, Brock Lesnar earned a reported $12 million in WWE for making what amounted to a handful of TV appearances and wrestling an even smaller handful of matches. However, I don't hold that against Brock because I, just like everyone else on these boards, would most definitely take Vince's money if he was stupid enough to give it to me. Up until the past several months, Brock Lesnar's matches have consisted almost entirely of squash matches that revolve around him delivering a plethora of German suplexes before hitting the F5. Prior to what we've seen from Great Balls of Fire, Brock Lesnar had spent virtually his entire time in WWE, except for a few matches with John Cena & CM Punk, making modern stars look like scrubs whereas the only guys to hold their own with Lesnar in feuds were Attitude Era guys like Triple H, the Undertaker and Goldberg. As a result, Lesnar's matches had become all but unwatchable until WWE took a different approach for his match with Samoa Joe at Great Balls of Fire: they made Joe look like a threat due to making Lesnar look vulnerable by having Joe get the best of him. During the match, and the brawl that happened before the match itself, Joe again looked like a worthy challenger, someone who was on the cusp of beating Lesnar and they kept that going through SummerSlam with his bout against Joe, Roman Reigns & Braun Strowman and for his singles match at No Mercy against Strowman. While I'm still not a fan of Lesnar ultimately not being around as much as other champions, at least his matches have finally become worth watching and actually help elevate the younger talent instead of the company booking them to look like guys who had no business even being in the ring with him. Lesnar still has issues regarding his singles matches, the guy's lazier than hell much of the time, but I'll take improvement where I can get it.

I get that Jinder being WWE Champion is purely business, like it really should be for any main event champion. As I've said in some other threads, just think of all the money that could be generated if only a small fraction of a percent of the population of India signs up for the WWE Network. Let's say that beginning in December, during WWE's tour of India, through WrestleMania that 4 million people from India, on average, subscribe to the network; that's a ton of money and it's possible considering that 4 million is only about...what? a fourth of a single percent of the population? If it happens then, unfortunately, Jinder's status as a main eventer will be secured and we'll have years of mediocrity to look forward to in the main event picture. I get why Vince is pushing him, I understand it, but that doesn't mean I like it because it's my opinion that Jinder isn't a good wrestler at all.

 

[Navi]

I have to agree with Dagger here, both have been kind of horrible. Lesnar isn't there to defend the Universal Title and Mahal doesn't have the credentials to even be a world champion. Not yet anyway.

Listen we all knew what was going on happen once Lesnar won the title, its not like we haven't been on this merry-go-round before. He wins the title and then we don't see him for months. Every once in awhile he'll show up, Heyman will come out and go on about the fact that he's this, that and the other and Brock will dance around smiling like a monkey. When there is a title defense it will be suplex after suplex and a couple of F5's, then the match is over.

Say what you want about Mahal being boring but Lesnar matches haven't exactly set the world on fire either. When it comes to Mahal though, I have to give the guy props for at least being there week in and week out. He definitely lacks the credibility that Lesnar has, but the WWE is trying with him. Can anyone say they weren't surprised when he won, I know I was. It's much better than the waste of time the championship belt is on RAW.

On SD Live, Mahal will do the India tour then drop the title to Styles, Owens or Nakamura, hopefully, he will have served the purpose for giving it to him in the first place. After that he'll go back to the mid card where he quite rightly belongs. I can actually see him in a feud with Corbin for the US title. We all know that Lesnar will hold the belt until Mania, he'll drop it to Reigns (God knows why he needs another rub), but that is supposed to send everyone home happy. It won't but God love them for keeping with the plan.

For those that say "the championship shouldn't be defended all the time", well hell isn't that why there is a hierarchy to begin with? Isn't that why these guys are out there night after night? The WWE is a ladder without rungs at this point in time.

So I guess the answer to the question is there is no answer. Both titles have been a total waste of time this year.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

If you look at it with 2017 eyes, then I would say that both even set the world on fire but if you look at it from an old school perpective then I would say both have had pretty good run for different reason.

Lesnar run as champion was done mostly to give credibility to the universal title as the equivalent of the wwe title by givig the belt to a big name star. So that what he's done. His booking was more of an old school type booking we're you don't see the champion every week so when I show up the wrestles, the match feels special kinda like when hulk hogan defended his title on tv back in the 80's, you didn't see Hogan wrestles every week but when he showed up, it felt special.

Jinder's run as wwe champion was done mostly to try and get more peoples from india to buy the network, did it work, maybe. All we know is what wwe as release about this. But when you look at Jinder when he won the title compared to we're he is today, he took the opportunity that they give him and made the most out of it. The guy is becoming a better character because of this run and shows that it he belong in the mid card when he lose the title. When I look at his run as champion, he's pretty much doing the foreign heel champion character like iron sheik was doing in the 80's and he's becoming good a heel. Fans do react to him which he didn't get before, the singh brothers are great in their roles and while some fans don't like him because he was a jobber before becoming champion, he is a new talent that they are trying to get behnd and to move up the card which is something they haven't done in awhile now. So again he's not a great champion but considering where he started, the guy as had a pretty good run as champion as well.

In the end, I feel that it all depend on how you look at their runs. If you take wrestling like a serious thing and care about in ring work and win and lost then, they both had bad runs as champions, if you're more into character development and storytelling then they had prety good runs as champions

 

[The Life Of Pablo Ren]

Both have managed to make the mid-card championship the main championship on their respective brands. In Mahal's case that's pretty impressive considering he's there every week, at least with Lesnar there's the case of him hardly ever being on RAW.

But honestly, I think Lesnar's reign has been worse, and it all comes down to the expectations of both men.

Jinder has constantly disappointed as champion but that really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. He isn't credible, he doesn't have many, if any of the tools it takes. He's the very definition of a guy that's just "there"... except he's the WWE Champion.

But Brock has been just as disappointing, and Brock isn't supposed to disappoint. He's a once in a lifetime type athlete who has one of the best talkers in the history of wrestling right beside him, and he isn't living up to what he has proven he can be. He's been put in "dream match" type scenarios with guys like Strowman and Joe and both matches have been very flat. Plus it doesn't help that anyone with half a brain could tell months ago when his reign will end, where it'll end, and who will beat him. It's hard to get excited knowing that no one in the next year who challenges Brock has an even remote chance of winning because the end game for him and his reign is WrestleMania. (It's starting to become clear the same is happening with Jinder, but at least it took us months to realize).

 

[The Perfect Max]

Well from one perspective, Brock Lesnar's reign has been terrible for the simple fact that he hardly ever defends it, and when he does, it's at the expense of somebody on the main roster who has organically gained so much momentum, only to then lose that steam because Lesnar has to remain champion to supposedly give credibility to the title. Yet, from the other perspective, Jinder Mahal has been flat out boring as champion, and his feuds with Randy Orton and Shinsuke Nakamura have been overlong, overdrawn and sad. And again, his reign has come at the expense of guys that deserve to carry THE title in professional wrestling.

I think that the logic that Jinder being champion during the Indian tour is to promote the WWE to it's optimum in India is somewhat sound on paper, but equally I can't justify his reign for that simple reason. If I did, I would then somehow have to justify how fans in England have become so passionate about WWE without ever having an English WWE Champion, despite a guy like Davey Boy Smith arguably being so deserving of it before his death, or guys like Wade Barrett ultimately being failed experiments. But during those periods, we had guys like Shawn Michaels or Steve Austin as champion, and with later examples we had John Cena and Triple H. All of these guys were great champions and made me invested in the main event product because of their legitimacy as champions, and personality and charisma on screen. Mahal has not once showed me any personality or charisma that justifies why he is champion at a time when a guy like AJ Styles is arguably at his professional peak and on the roster. My point is that WWE has some other great options on SmackDown for the WWE Championship, but instead what we have had is resistance from fans towards a guy that they can't take seriously, and detrimental feuds with guys who deserve so much more, all the while stifling the progression of much better talent.

But is this worse than a guy who hardly ever appears, and when he does, goes over guys like Braun Strowman, who has some of the most organic momentum I have seen in quite some years? Sure, Strowman might not be exactly ready. And sure, Strowman deserves his moment on a bigger stage than a forgettable B pay-per-view. But I think fans are over the idea that Brock Lesnar is this unbeatable monster. They have a new guy for that, who by the way produces a much more interesting match these days. I guess my issue with Lesnar as champion is, at this point, the affect it has on the progression of the stars on Raw. What do they have to fight for, especially when they lose anyway? The TLC event highlighted how empty an event can look without a world title match. The redeeming quality with Lesnar as champion is that a lot of people are still invested in seeing him, even if that majority has shrunk over the last few years. He does draw. Mahal does not draw. Maybe he does in India, but is WWE willing to accept a decline elsewhere to grab the attention of Indian fans. What happens when Mahal loses the title? By the logic that WWE is using now, doesn't this mean that Indian fans will tune out when Mahal's reign is done? That might sound petty, but Mahal doesn't need to be a champion to be in a prominent position at a time where WWE wishes to utilise him as a special attraction in foreign parts of the world.

There's a lot of rambling in this post, but it's a very interesting question that you pose and I'm glad someone has asked it. There are some redeeming qualities to Lesnar's reign, perhaps at best being that he is Brock fucking Lesnar. I struggle to find anything AT THIS POINT that makes me believe in Mahal's reign. Perhaps I just don't understand his purpose as champion. Maybe I'm old school in this sense, but when you have one of the biggest wrestling names in the world performing at what seems like his second peak, AJ Styles, he should be your champion. Brutus The Barber Beefcake was never champion when Hogan was around because Hogan was the guy. Styles is the guy on SmackDown. Maybe that logic is flawed, and I am all for progression and new and upcoming champions. But come on. At this point, why is Mahal still champion? I'd say he's had the worst reign.

 

[OYDK]

Pretty good question actually. Brock Lesnar is clearly more fit to be a champion than Jinder Mahal but does that mean his run has actually been better? I will say this for him at least, the matches that he has had with Joe, Strowman, and Joe/Strowman/Reigns have felt like big-time title defenses and from what I've seen over the months, they generated a HELL of a lot more interest than any Mahal match with Orton and Nakamura. On the other hand, Lesnar's only defended the title three times since Wrestlemania and while I understand that this used to be a regular occurrence at one time, this isn't 1985 anymore. Fans expect the champion to be around and to see a title defense at every PPV. They've expected this for well over 20 years now. Throw in the possibility that we might not see another defense until January and we're bordering on downright ridiculous. At least Mahal has been around every week.

Pretty much, I just want the title off of both of them and I couldn't care less who takes it. I will gladly take a Roman Reigns championship run if it means the Universal title is going to be around full-time again. Jinder is downright boring with or without a title and I don't really think anybody wants him as WWE champion. And no, it's not because he's such a great heel like say, JBL was. It's because everybody knows he's not skilled, charismatic, or exciting enough to make for an intriguing WWE champion and we all know what we're getting with him whenever he walks through the curtain. An average, generic promo or an average, generic match.

I'd have to say that Lesnar's run has probably been better. He's a better champion and his matches generate a lot more interest than Mahal's. If he was around a bit more, this wouldn't even be up for discussion. Mahal's redeeming factor is that he's there... and that's basically all he has going for him.

 

[BestSportsEntertainer]

Jinder Mahal has had the worst run quite easily.

Lesnar at least has the match with Joe and the fatal 4-way at SummerSlam. Those alone trump anything Jinder has done.

I'm not sure what else to say. I can't think of one good moment/match/promo of Jinder's. He's just bad.

 

[Navi]

If you look at it with 2017 eyes, then I would say that both even set the world on fire but if you look at it from an old school perpective then I would say both have had pretty good run for different reason.

Lesnar run as champion was done mostly to give credibility to the universal title as the equivalent of the wwe title by givig the belt to a big name star. So that what he's done. His booking was more of an old school type booking we're you don't see the champion every week so when I show up the wrestles, the match feels special kinda like when hulk hogan defended his title on tv back in the 80's, you didn't see Hogan wrestles every week but when he showed up, it felt special.

I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall here, but I will try again. Yes I agree that Lesnar's booking is old school. Back then you didn't see the champ every week, the champ didn't defend the title once a month and it was special when he did.

We are not old school anymore and this kind of booking doesn't work for a lot of fans. Wrestling is not just something that comes on for an hour a week like it used too. With the advent of the network, you can watch it 24/7 if you so desire. Just with the WWE alone there are 7 hours every week of live TV that have to be filled. There wasn't monthly or bi-monthly PPV's like there is now.

The title scene on RAW could have been written by a three year old this year. I can't remember a less exciting year for waiting to see who would get the title and who they would defend it against. It's like Vince lined up his wrestler's like duck's in a shooting booth and had Lesnar take them out one at a time. Just terrible.

 

[ShinChan]

I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall here, but I will try again. Yes I agree that Lesnar's booking is old school. Back then you didn't see the champ every week, the champ didn't defend the title once a month and it was special when he did.

We are not old school anymore and this kind of booking doesn't work for a lot of fans. Wrestling is not just something that comes on for an hour a week like it used too. With the advent of the network, you can watch it 24/7 if you so desire. Just with the WWE alone there are 7 hours every week of live TV that have to be filled. There wasn't monthly or bi-monthly PPV's like there is now.

The title scene on RAW could have been written by a three year old this year. I can't remember a less exciting year for waiting to see who would get the title and who they would defend it against. It's like Vince lined up his wrestler's like duck's in a shooting booth and had Lesnar take them out one at a time. Just terrible.

There are many problems with Lesnar not defending the title. Even if I agree that Brock Lesnar is making this title feel special, it doesn't make it any logical. Plus, he isn't making title feel special.

Why should I buy a RAW PPV when the top champion isn't defending the title? Why should I buy a Smackdown PPV when the top champion is one of the worst champions? No reason and that's why I won't buy.

Does WWE want me buy every PPV? Or just the PPV when Brock Lesnar defends his title? After all, each PPV is a special event. The booking of World Champions this year have been like "We don't care for you. Watch if you want. Or don't. But we will keep the titles on guys we like".

 

[Da Prophet]

Jinder is by far worse because he doesn't draw in the attention that Brock does and his title matches have been far worse than Lesnar's.

I'd rather see a great match four times a year than a crappy one every single month. Quality over quantity, thanks.

There are many problems with Lesnar not defending the title. Even if I agree that Brock Lesnar is making this title feel special, it doesn't make it any logical. Plus, he isn't making title feel special.

Why should I buy a RAW PPV when the top champion isn't defending the title? Why should I buy a Smackdown PPV when the top champion is one of the worst champions? No reason and that's why I won't buy.

Does WWE want me buy every PPV? Or just the PPV when Brock Lesnar defends his title? After all, each PPV is a special event. The booking of World Champions this year have been like "We don't care for you. Watch if you want. Or don't. But we will keep the titles on guys we like".

WWE don't care about you buying PPVs.

They haven't since they started the Network. Your whole argument doesn't work. People are paying for the entire WWE library with the new PPVs as a huge feature. It doesn't matter when Brock defends because your audience has a bunch of original programming and every WWE PPV ever to watch with the incentive of staying subscribed to the Network being cheaper than ordering each individual Brock Lesnar PPV.

For me it'd cost more to buy each PPV with Lesnar on it through a PPV provider, considerably more in fact, than if I stayed subscribed to the WWE Network each month. Therefore, it makes no difference when Brock appears and your PPV point makes zero sense.

WWE got out of that market long ago.

 

[ShinChan]

WWE don't care about you buying PPVs.

They haven't since they started the Network. Your whole argument doesn't work. People are paying for the entire WWE library with the new PPVs as a huge feature. It doesn't matter when Brock defends because your audience has a bunch of original programming and every WWE PPV ever to watch with the incentive of staying subscribed to the Network being cheaper than ordering each individual Brock Lesnar PPV.

For me it'd cost more to buy each PPV with Lesnar on it through a PPV provider, considerably more in fact, than if I stayed subscribed to the WWE Network each month. Therefore, it makes no difference when Brock appears and your PPV point makes zero sense.

WWE got out of that market long ago.

My intention was to ask why should I watch a particular PPV if the top champion isn't defending his title?

Be it via buying PPV or subscribing to WWE Network. Apparently, the commentary does ask to subscribe to Network to watch some certain PPV. Don't they? The point was more about "Why to watch a PPV" instead of just buying a PPV or subscribing to Network.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

My intention was to ask why should I watch a particular PPV if the top champion isn't defending his title?

Be it via buying PPV or subscribing to WWE Network. Apparently, the commentary does ask to subscribe to Network to watch some certain PPV. Don't they? The point was more about "Why to watch a PPV" instead of just buying a PPV or subscribing to Network.

But at the same point, while they want fans to subscribe to the network fto watch the PPV, they really don't care if you watch every PPV. We are living in a new era where their so much content available that you can pick and choose what you want.

I'm one of the lucky one that got the network as a actually cable network. Last week TLC show didn't interest me even at all even with all the change, you could have put lesnar on the card and I would have skip it anyway. So I pvr it and watch the part that seem interesting later on.

The point I'm making is that being the champion of a brand doesn't mean as much as it use to. Now you can have a champion not show up on every b- shows and it won't make a difference because they still get the same number of suscribers either way.
They been stuck at 1.5 millions subscribers for a while now and I don't see this number changing anytime soon even if you take the belt off Lesnar and on to somebody else. The fact is fans in the arena still pops big for lesnar when he shows up with the belt and that's what important in the end. Same goes for jinder, fans still boo the hell out of him in the arena and that's what's important for them for now.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall here, but I will try again. Yes I agree that Lesnar's booking is old school. Back then you didn't see the champ every week, the champ didn't defend the title once a month and it was special when he did.

We are not old school anymore and this kind of booking doesn't work for a lot of fans. Wrestling is not just something that comes on for an hour a week like it used too. With the advent of the network, you can watch it 24/7 if you so desire. Just with the WWE alone there are 7 hours every week of live TV that have to be filled. There wasn't monthly or bi-monthly PPV's like there is now.

The title scene on RAW could have been written by a three year old this year. I can't remember a less exciting year for waiting to see who would get the title and who they would defend it against. It's like Vince lined up his wrestler's like duck's in a shooting booth and had Lesnar take them out one at a time. Just terrible.

I get that we are in 2017 now not in the 80's yet their a lot of similarities between that era and today's era. First, while viewer's are important for wwe, they go by who's over with th live crowd just like they did back then. Lesnar draws crowd in the arena, he will always draw crowds and having him as champion even if he's just part time as help te title tremendously after the awful booking of it with owens last year. The title needed a rehab and lesnar gave it that.

Secondly, simple characters still works. You look at jimder for this one. Has he been a great champions, heel no, he's a generic champion and he's been really boring, but again the anti american heel champion character his working for him since the fans in the arenas are reacting to his act so they continue to push him because of it.

The point is that, will the tv product is still important to them, they don't needed it as much as they use to. They have they're 1.5 millions subscribers to the network that will stay subscribe no matter what or who they push. The ratings are steady and they get pay the same amount of money no matter who watch.

So the thing and and that is the final similarity with the 80's. Where back to a caring more about fans that buys tickets for the shows and how they react to those characters then how the viewers react to the tv product. If you look at it that way lesnar and jinder are doing their job just fine. Lesnar is putting butts in seat every time he's on the card, jinder is one of the top heel on the smackdown roster behind owens and zayn so he's doing his job as well.

WWE as always been more of a characters product and less of a wrestling company. They decide who to push on how over the character is. If fans don't react to a character, they don't or stop pushing him just like how they did back in the 80's. That's how wwe as always worked and that one part of the product that will never change. Fans reactions in a live seeting is the most important thing for them. That's how they see who to push and who they don't push. So the booking will suffer because of this. The tv viewers are ot as important anymore as it once did because in the end, they know that even if we don't like what see on t.v, when they come to town for a tv tapings, we will flock and buy tickets anyway. So who's the champion on each brand isn't as important as it once was. If you look at it from a tv show perspective, then yes, they are both bad champion, but as far as live events characters, they did pretty well as champion.

 

[Navi]

I'd rather see a great match four times a year than a crappy one every single month. Quality over quantity, thanks.

I agree and so would I but you have to admit that neither one of the champions that we have put on stellar matches this year. Mahal is boring and Lesnar (other than the match with Joe and possibly Strowman), hasn't exactly been fantastic either. Considering he only shows up every once in awhile, you would think that his matches wouldn't be suplex, suplex, suplex, suplex, F5, suplex and a final F5. His opponents other than Joe weren't allowed to get much offense in.

WWE don't care about you buying PPVs.

They haven't since they started the Network. Your whole argument doesn't work. People are paying for the entire WWE library with the new PPVs as a huge feature. It doesn't matter when Brock defends because your audience has a bunch of original programming and every WWE PPV ever to watch with the incentive of staying subscribed to the Network being cheaper than ordering each individual Brock Lesnar PPV.

That point would be valid if they didn't use PPV's to sell the network. And because they do use them, it's a really crappy excuse to put on poor ones. Also take into consideration that RAW and SD Live are used as the run up to said PPV's, so if the WWE doesn't care about PPV's, then why bother watching any WWE product at all. The shows on the US network and PPV's on the WWE network go hand in hand.

I get that we are in 2017 now not in the 80's yet their a lot of similarities between that era and today's era. First, while viewer's are important for wwe, they go by who's over with th live crowd just like they did back then. Lesnar draws crowd in the arena, he will always draw crowds and having him as champion even if he's just part time as help te title tremendously after the awful booking of it with owens last year. The title needed a rehab and lesnar gave it that.

I see what you are saying but you are forgetting that Lesnar isn't advertised for a lot of the shows until the week before. Tickets for these shows are sold months in advance, so while fans can hope that they will see Lesnar they aren't guaranteed to. So yea shows that he's advertised for months in advance he will draw people in, but that isn't always the case.

Not only that, he doesn't defend the title or even wrestle on free TV if you want. He only actually comes to play when a PPV rolls around, and sometimes not even then.

 

[ShinChan]

But at the same point, while they want fans to subscribe to the network fto watch the PPV, they really don't care if you watch every PPV. We are living in a new era where their so much content available that you can pick and choose what you want.

I'm one of the lucky one that got the network as a actually cable network. Last week TLC show didn't interest me even at all even with all the change, you could have put lesnar on the card and I would have skip it anyway. So I pvr it and watch the part that seem interesting later on.

The point I'm making is that being the champion of a brand doesn't mean as much as it use to. Now you can have a champion not show up on every b- shows and it won't make a difference because they still get the same number of suscribers either way.
They been stuck at 1.5 millions subscribers for a while now and I don't see this number changing anytime soon even if you take the belt off Lesnar and on to somebody else. The fact is fans in the arena still pops big for lesnar when he shows up with the belt and that's what important in the end. Same goes for jinder, fans still boo the hell out of him in the arena and that's what's important for them for now.

That's not what I'm saying. Lesnar does get pops. Jinder does get boos.

All I'm telling is my perspective. If I want to see a PPV then I would like the main event to be a match for the top Championship. That's what I'm saying. Be it Lesnar or anyone. Defending the title 3 times in 6 months isn't what I want a champion to do. Since April, even IWGP World Heavyweight Champion Kazuchika Okada has defended his title more than Brock Lesnar without any weekly programming like Raw to go through. So why should I watch a RAW PPV without the top champion? Plus, if WWE doesn’t care to give me the best, I would rather stop giving them more chances. Like I stopped giving Jinder Mahal any more chances.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

Look at Heyman promo on Monday. It makes you interested in a match and you want ginger Indian and his helping elfs taken to Suplex City. It doesnt matter that Brock is not defending, he looks like a big deal and is. And one of the things that allows him that is that he is not there every week taking "accidental losses" so his opponent would look good with 50-50 booking and doing "hot potato" with that title so him and his opponent would be 3 times Champions by the end of year. All Universal Champions include:

Balor 1 day reign
Owens transitional reign because Balor was injured where he defended it in same maner Mahal does now only he had Jericho instead of sing-along brothers and lost it to Goldberg in 20 seconds
Goldberg reign where he won it and lost it to Lesnar at Mania

So, in a way Lesnar reign there is kinda improvement because if you consider his reign bad what can you tell about previous ones?

Mahal does nothing for Championship. He doesnt have Heyman or other mouthpiece and is bad at promos at his own, his ring work is subpar and doesnt bring anyone there who would want to watch him unless you consider his "great heel work" that everyone wants to see his ass kicked because he is unbearable.

So its not really a question who is worse, anyone who is not hellbent on how "we are not having fighting champion because it would be so much better" could just tell that by looking at any of their work so far.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

That's not what I'm saying. Lesnar does get pops. Jinder does get boos.

All I'm telling is my perspective. If I want to see a PPV then I would like the main event to be a match for the top Championship. That's what I'm saying. Be it Lesnar or anyone. Defending the title 3 times in 6 months isn't what I want a champion to do. Since April, even IWGP World Heavyweight Champion Kazuchika Okada has defended his title more than Brock Lesnar without any weekly programming like Raw to go through. So why should I watch a RAW PPV without the top champion? Plus, if WWE doesn’t care to give me the best, I would rather stop giving them more chances. Like I stopped giving Jinder Mahal any more chances.

i completely agree with you on this, wjy should you continue to watch PPV if they don't give you the world title match on every show?

But my point is, where not in the PPV era anymore, where in the Network era so having the champion on every PPV doesn't matter as much as it once did. You don't want to watch a certain PPV don't watch it, you're still going to continue and pay you're network subscription anyway because you want to watch other stuff on the network so they got your money anyway. Look at my exemple, i didn't want to watch TLC live last week, so i PVR it and only watch what i wanted to watch and skip the rest. That what a lot of fans that got the network do know when a show isn't worth it. If they got the network like we have it in Canada then they just PVR the show and skip all the boring stuff, if you watch it on the over the top service, then same thing you just go and watch it later and watch the stuff you want to see out of the show. If you don'T want to see Jinder's match, don't watch it, skip it and just watch the stuff you want to watch.

That'S why i feel like champions don'T means as much to a multi millions dollar company as it once did. They can actually have a champion not defended his title on every b-shows and the fans that goes to the events won't mind as much and they already got as much network subscribers as they are going to get at this point of the year so who cares really if you watch a show like TLC or not because in the end, they still got you're money anyway.

The tv product suffers because they are more concern with the live presentation of the shows for the audience that are live at the arena. Until they lose, a whole lot of their viewing audience and the network subscribing number goes under a millions, they won't care as much about the fans that are watching at home. You can have Lesnar on every ppv and defend his title, but then he become just another guy with a championship. The fact that he'S a part timer, makes him a great attraction and makes the title match feel special because you're not getting trapped in the repetition of being force to have a title match on every show and personally, i look at it as a breath of fresh air because guys that normally wouldn't even get a chance of being in the main event of a PPV get that chance. If Lesnar was on every show defending the title, do you thing that guys like The Miz, Cesaro and Sheamus would ever get a chance to be in a main event of a PPV, Hell no. The fact that LEsnar wasn'T there for the TLC PPV gave them a shot at proving they belong in the main event pictures. It gave something fresh for the fans to watch as well.

I know some fans like to have a world title match on every show and it's o.k. but i rather have the title match means something instead of being force on the show because we need a title matchs which means that we get the same match multiple times because they don't have time in between PPV to creat a new challenger. But i guess i'm in the minority that actually like what going on with Lesnar and see the upside of this part time title defend.

 

[ShinChan]

i completely agree with you on this, wjy should you continue to watch PPV if they don't give you the world title match on every show?

But my point is, where not in the PPV era anymore, where in the Network era so having the champion on every PPV doesn't matter as much as it once did. You don't want to watch a certain PPV don't watch it, you're still going to continue and pay you're network subscription anyway because you want to watch other stuff on the network so they got your money anyway. Look at my exemple, i didn't want to watch TLC live last week, so i PVR it and only watch what i wanted to watch and skip the rest. That what a lot of fans that got the network do know when a show isn't worth it. If they got the network like we have it in Canada then they just PVR the show and skip all the boring stuff, if you watch it on the over the top service, then same thing you just go and watch it later and watch the stuff you want to see out of the show. If you don'T want to see Jinder's match, don't watch it, skip it and just watch the stuff you want to watch.

That'S why i feel like champions don'T means as much to a multi millions dollar company as it once did. They can actually have a champion not defended his title on every b-shows and the fans that goes to the events won't mind as much and they already got as much network subscribers as they are going to get at this point of the year so who cares really if you watch a show like TLC or not because in the end, they still got you're money anyway.

The tv product suffers because they are more concern with the live presentation of the shows for the audience that are live at the arena. Until they lose, a whole lot of their viewing audience and the network subscribing number goes under a millions, they won't care as much about the fans that are watching at home. You can have Lesnar on every ppv and defend his title, but then he become just another guy with a championship. The fact that he'S a part timer, makes him a great attraction and makes the title match feel special because you're not getting trapped in the repetition of being force to have a title match on every show and personally, i look at it as a breath of fresh air because guys that normally wouldn't even get a chance of being in the main event of a PPV get that chance. If Lesnar was on every show defending the title, do you thing that guys like The Miz, Cesaro and Sheamus would ever get a chance to be in a main event of a PPV, Hell no. The fact that LEsnar wasn'T there for the TLC PPV gave them a shot at proving they belong in the main event pictures. It gave something fresh for the fans to watch as well.

I know some fans like to have a world title match on every show and it's o.k. but i rather have the title match means something instead of being force on the show because we need a title matchs which means that we get the same match multiple times because they don't have time in between PPV to creat a new challenger. But i guess i'm in the minority that actually like what going on with Lesnar and see the upside of this part time title defend.

I understand what you're saying. But for me, PPV is a special event. And special event should include a World Title match. It's not like I'm asking for a World Title match at any RAW or Smackdown regular episode. But at least, when the special event of a certain brand takes place, I would like to see a match for the top title. Just see TLC. No Universal Championship defense. No InterContinental Championship defense. No Tag Team Championship defense. And it seemed like Raw's episode. World Title match is a major attraction in a PPV for me. Because the stakes are high.

Plus, we are in some good time as we can have plenty of great wrestling even without WWE. Bunch of options.