Booking World Titles
Normal
0
false
false
false
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
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.
All Content © 2011 by Fight Media Inc. | Site Developed by Nautical Progressions
