Booking World Titles
The WWE presented arguably their best received pay per view of the year with ‘Money in the Bank' that delivered three really phenomenal matches and limited the bad (ie: the women's bouts) to a short time frame that made for an enjoyable event.
However, the biggest talking point coming out of the show was the decision to not only book Kane to win the Smackdown ‘Money in the Bank' briefcase but also cash in the briefcase that same night and defeat Rey Mysterio for the World Title.
Later that night on The LAW there was a big debate amongst not only our hosts Dan Lovranski and Jason Agnew, who differed on whether it was a positive or not but also amongst our callers who were also split. As a result there were lots of opinions and the overall consensus I have read from people is that it was nice to see Kane win the title after all of his hard years of work in the WWE.
That brings me to the focus of this commentary because that argument holds no water in my opinion in terms of how to book your World Title.
Let's rewind and remind ourselves what the purpose of a World Title is supposed to be when it comes to it's usage in professional wrestling. The answer is really simple - to draw money and theoretically that money is fuelled by interest in the character, product and hopefully both. The title is designed to be the pinnacle for every performer to aspire to, in the context of a pro wrestling show it represents being the top guy in the company and is valued because only a small percentage are able to ascend to that level. This is a concept that is easily digested whether you are a six year old kid that doesn't know the difference between ‘work' and ‘shoot' or a jaded teenager who is on the internet 24/7 but understands what the value of the title is in professional wrestling and what it means from a business sense to put the title on a guy.
At no time in wrestling's history have World Titles been at the current level in terms of perception and value. At one time a strong program for the title with a singles match blow off was enough to draw a big number on pay per view but in today's era of sports entertainment pay per view numbers are in the toilet and gimmicks have become the order of the day with a plethora of ‘concept shows' being thrown out in hopes of a handful being draws, using gimmicks ahead of titles as the major draw.
The UFC has proven that strong titles with emotional attachments to the principal fighters and a promise going into a show of a ‘winner' and a ‘loser' by show's end is a highly successful formula, but I will keep this within the spectrum of professional wrestling for argument's sake.
There was a long period of time as a fan growing up and later covering the industry for a living that I could easily rattle off the lineage of the WWF Title and the order of champions. Today I would not have a prayer of tracing back the WWE or World Title over the past 18-months and I feel the past months have been the most critical to the title. Take a look at the title changes in 2009 for both Raw and Smackdown. How can anyone possibly care about John Cena or Randy Orton winning the title again when it's been positioned as a game of hot potato rather than a title being something years in the making for a performer to gain a run with?
Which brings us to the decision to put the World Title on Kane at the last WWE pay per view and belief that if a guy puts in enough years that he ‘deserves' a run with the title.
Part of the draw behind a title is that only a fraction of the talent ever gets a run with the belt. If Hulk Hogan routinely dropped the title in the mid to late 80's and half the roster held the title in that time span than would you really care when Hogan won the title for the 12th time? From 1985 - 1990 the WWF Title was held by a total of three people (Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage and Ultimate Warrior). This made the title an instant tool to make someone a star because of the company you were joining. In the past two years alone the following have held the WWE or World Title - John Cena, Randy Orton, Jeff Hardy, The Undertaker, CM Punk, Rey Mysterio, Jack Swagger, Edge, Chris Jericho, Sheamus and Batista.
No one would argue over the respect Andre the Giant had in the locker room in the mid 80's but they never put the WWF Title on him because they knew Hogan was the right guy for business and didn't let ‘company loyalty' come ahead of ‘company business'.
My criteria for a guy being give the main company title is very simple - will he add interest and therefore business to the product? I could care less if the guy is a five star worker or a blob in the ring because history dictates that work rate is a fraction of the appeal to the casual observer with personality and charisma placed at a much higher premium.
The argument that putting the title on Kane won't mean a whole lot because titles mean less today only emphasizes the problem rather than solving the issue at hand. Why are WWE shows not drawing on PPV? Two of the biggest reasons are wins and losses being trivialized and titles not meaning a thing.
Why was it such a big deal when Fedor lost to Fabricio Werdum? Because he hadn't legitimately lost a fight in his career and it meant something. If you think using MMA as a comparison point is apples to oranges than I would argue that Fedor's ‘streak' within MMA is no different than The Undertaker's WrestleMania streak, which is the sole match promoted each year by the WWE where the audience is truly invested in the winner and loser of said match. The suspension of disbelief is there if given the time and importance.
Kane is probably a super nice guy, has worked tremendously hard for the company but in the summer of 2010 is he the right guy to hold the title and is the title any stronger today as a result?
To me the idea that a guy working ‘x' amount of years with a company earning a title run as a result only negates the title. You don't book based on a merit system and take years of service into account, it has to be the right guy for the right time and far too often the most successful money drawing gimmick in the history of wrestling has been trivialized far too often in today's industry.
