World Title: A Main Eventer Requirement?

[Rusty]

I purposely posted this in the WWE Section because I'm applying this topic to current WWE Superstars.

Anyway, a large majority of the main eventers who are currently still with the company have all held the WWE or World Heavyweight Championships. I'm not counting the ECW Championship as I (along with many others) believe it's an upper mid-card title but nothing more. Some examples of this are: Shawn Michaels, Undertaker, Triple H, John Cena, Batista, Edge, Randy Orton and many more. Every one of those superstars have held a World Title at some stage of their career and are still main event superstars to this very day.

However, a guy like Bobby Lashley was considered a main eventer before he was released, yet he never held a World Title in his WWE career. Once again, I'm not including his ECW Title reign and that title isn't a legitimate World Championship. Jeff Hardy's recent title win made me think of this topic, because before he won the WWE Championship, I saw some people still calling him an upper mid-carder which I disagreed with because I believed he was a main eventer before he won the title in 2008.

Do you think a superstar has to win a World Title to become a legitimate main eventer or do you think a main eventer can be made with the proper build up (eg. a few clean and decisive victories over veterans/current main eventers)?

Please post detailed responses.

 

[OIL]

I think it depends on the way they are booked. I mean, I can understand why people didn't think Jeff Hardy was a main eventer, because he constantly kept falling short, so up against champions he looked inferior, and so couldn't be considered a main eventer. But now he has won a championship, he can be seen as a legitimate main eventer, because he's top of everyone else.

Look at other examples and you'll see they need the title. You talked about Lashley, however, on RAW he may have been booked as a main eventer, but in reality he wasn't, and I didn't see him as one. He had one WWE Title fued with Cena which was seriously rushed, thus spoiling the fued. But, forgetting the actual fued, after the title match he didn't stay in the main event picture, and was more a mid-carder, and I think the other fans felt that way too. To be a main eventer I feel you do need a title, because it's the only way fans can truly see the wrestler as a main eventer.

 

[Slyfox696]

Andre the Giant

It pretty much kills the thought that you have to have won a World title to be considered a main-eventer. The man held the WWF World Title one time, for about 2 minutes, and this was LONG after Andre had been in his prime. Andre was main-eventing shows left and right in his prime, and had never been a World Champion.

However, I assume that you would then refocus your argument to today's standards. I don't think that you have to have won a World Title to be considered a main-eventer, it's just that for most people to be given main-event slots by the WWE, the WWE gives them a title to start them off. I think if the WWE would put an "undercard" wrestler in several main-events, and the undercard wrestler was mega over with the fans, they wouldn't need the title to be seen as main-event. But, if they are mega over with the fans, the WWE is going to give them the title, in an effort to make more money.

So, the answer is "no", you don't have to be World Champion to be main-eventer, but if you are main-event caliber, you're probably going to be World Champion anyways.

 

[Kane666]

All you have to do is look at the HOF to see how many great wrestlers were main eventers without holding a World Title.And guys like Bam Bam,Jake Roberts,and Owen Hart come to mind also.

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

Three things, to me, determine whether or not you're in the main event:

1. If you're booked to look like you can be a threat to the world title and you consistently face people in the main event and don't job out to lower card guys.

2. How long you've been in that position.

3. Whether or not you've already been a world champion.

Some of the names brought up already....

Jeff Hardy - Up until he won the title, he was an upper midcarder to me. Why, despite being in the main event matches a lot this year? Because he wasn't doing anything. He was challenging, then getting pinned by HHH over and over and over again. That's not a main event guy to me, especially when for a while there Hardy could only beat solid midcarders like Shelton and Kendrick and was jobbing out to Kozlov, who 3 weeks beforehand was struggling to deal with Festus and Jimmy Wang Yang. But now that he's won the title, the fact that he had been nearly on top for a good chunk of the year helps him get a better grip on the main event monkeybars.

Bobby Lashley - Not in the slightest bit. Lashley did absolutely nothing when he went to Raw. The guy had no real feuds, had a title match with Cena that no sensible person thought he would win, got injured, and quit. He was the definition of high-tier midcarder. If you look back on my posts (which I'm sure as hell not gonna do as that was a while ago haha) I constantly threw him into the high-tier midcard spot and said he could be setting up good Intercontinental feuds with Kennedy and Carlito but nothing really more. Lashley wasn't even close to the main event despite being ECW champion and being involved in two title matches (one of which included like 8 other people, so that's not very impressive).

Andre the Giant - Now here's a guy that actually did win the title, albeit for an even shorter reign than Kane lol. But much in the same concept as Kane, both of these guys were main eventing matches and serious threats to titles for an entire decade. They're perfect examples of people that don't need to have 3 title reigns or whatever to be main event stars.

Now, you take a look at a guy like CM Punk. He won the ECW title and didn't do too much with it before losing to Chavo Guerrero, which makes him lose some points clearly. He won the Money in the Bank on a default due to Hardy being absent and then he won the World Heavyweight Championship as a means to get a world title on Raw, as that was the best method of doing it at the time of the draft. During his title reign, the only two guys he was allowed to beat in a clean and standard fashion were Snitsky (a jobber) and JBL (a jobber to the stars). He then lost it and has floundered around where he had a piss-poor tag team reign and is now potentially going to win the IC title. So you go from upper midcard to upper midcarder that jobs out on a near constant basis but has a briefcase, to random champ that can't beat anybody, to being demoted back down to the midcard. To me, Punk right now isn't a main event guy. He has the POTENTIAL to be a main event guy, though. For instance, let's just say that Raw has the Elimination Chamber this time around (which I doubt it will). If you had Orton, HBK, Jericho, Kane, and two other people, I could see them picking Mysterio and Punk - two guys that are basically on the same level - and it wouldn't seem so out of place as if they picked two people like Sim Snuka and DJ Gabriel.

So really, having a 20 minute world title reign doesn't automatically make you a main event guy, and NOT having a world title reign doesn't automatically disqualify you, but in general, you have to be in the main event and consistently booked as a champion for a long period before I'll consider you a main event talent.

 

[klunderbunker]

I don't think so, at least not at first. Take Jeff Hardy for example. When he won the title at Armageddon it was downright shocking. I don't think any of us saw it coming. He had had so many chances coming into that it appeared as if he wasn't ever going to win. He had been beaten time after time in the big matches and it looked like his window might ahve been closing. However, I don't think anyone would argue that this year he wasn't a main eventer for the majority of the year. People know who is a main eventer and who isn't. The title is just a confirmation, but no it's not needed.

Also, a world title reign doesn't guarantee you'll be a main eventer. Cases in point: Kane and Punk. Both had world title reigns and Kane dabbles in the main event but for the most part is mid card, as does Punk. Punk's title reign was over two months long and he's still viewed as mid card. He was wrestling in the main event matches, but he seems as if he was just visiting. The title helps build credibility very well, as for the rest of his career, even if Punk never wins another match, he is a former world champion, which brings with it some additional respect. OVerall though, it helps, but it's not required.

 

[Mr. TM]

Definitely not. There have been a ton of wrestlers who have been in the main event without ever winning the world title. The people said are great examples. But what about those who are challenging time and time again, but continue to fall short. Or like what was said when a wrestler was only champion for a short time like Kane. Umage had been a main event wrestler for a year it seems, and never in that time did he win a world title. I think anyone in the main event can win the title, but there can only be one champion, and it may pass over many main eventers.

 

[Azrael Cain]

I like to think it helps.

The World Title is meant to represent "the best" within the company. Usually, that "best" has been with the company long enough to establish a history, to gain respect and heat with the fans, and is reliable and dependable in terms of working a match, a feud, and can improve. Basically, he embodies someone who is indeed "the best." Again, usually, these guys are main event level also because of all the aforementioned things.

However, and I think this to be a more recent trend, the WWE have used the World Title to elevate stars to the main event position. Immediately, for me anyway, Randy Orton's win comes to mind.

I think that many people may also disagree on what the requirements for a Main Eventer are. There are obvious choices: HHH, Edge, Taker, HBK, JBL, Jericho. And there are always those on the cusp. I think that the World Title is a two edged sword that can be either validation of a character's and a worker's efforts, or a tool for elevation. To win the World Title is to "win the big one," and when the company deems you good enough to do that, then one is considered a Main Eventer.

I also think that it is what one does with the chance and their run as World Champion. I am not sure how much leniency is given in terms of character development and opponent choosing -- CM Punk is a great example, and ac counter examples are of course Rock or Cena -- but it is the feud over the World Title that make it "the title" to hold, and "the champ" to be. The belt and the feuds it entails are meant to highlight "the best," or the "up and coming." But the role of the title has changed, in my opinion, from the earlier years of the WWE/F. I like to throw around the cliche that the belt, "It used to mean something," but I think that I am not alone in that opinion. Although you'd have to give me a few moments, and a few more cups of coffee, before my brain will process the Hows and Whys of that statement well enough to defend it.