When did this become a common wrestling platitude? I've noticed for the passed year or two this phrase gaining some steam on the forums. A poster will point out that a popular superstar does not need to carry around a championship to get people interested. While this is sorta true (Cena is a guy people will want to see with or without gold), it's kind of a redundant statement. Guys like Daniel Bryan are going to be loved whether they're against Brock Lesnar or Kevin Owens/Zayn, true, but if I was given the choice to watch him carry around the most important prize or fool around some more the decision is clear to me. Maybe I'm an old man and think the man should elevate the title and not the other way around, but I don't recall anybody saying these things about the big names in pro wrestling's past. I'm sure if I dug around I will not find "Stone Cold didn't need the title at this point" as an ordinary, insightful bead of wisdom. So why are we saying these things now? What does it mean to truly need a championship, anyways? Does a fresh face profit greatly from being the guy who carries around an important title? Because the last three years: Finn Balor Sheamus (yep) Dean Ambrose Bray Wyatt Jinder Mahal ...kinda say otherwise. I don't believe there is a performer on the roster who is too big for the prop that's purpose is to indicate the best in the company. If anything it needs that quality now more than it ever has with one title barely represented and the other locked in a lengthy game of "What's The Capital of Thailand?" When somebody says that The Miz or any other guy that could make the show interesting "doesn't need the title" I have no idea what the hell that really means. Help me out here.