Does being WWE or Universal Champion REALLY matter?

[d_henderson1810]

A lot of so-called fans here have constantly harped over the years about how their favourite should be champion, and main eventing, rather than who Vince pushes.

But Vince Russo is right, the title is a PROP. In a scripted environment, whoever is champion probably doesn't matter as much.

The problem is that wrestling is a scripted environment, and whoever wins the belt is chosen by someone.

For example, if Roman Reigns excelled in any other sport, you would have to accept his success, because it means that he is actually that good to achieve those things. It wouldn't matter what you thought of him, you would have to admit to his success.

However, because wrestling is pre-determined, then who should be champion is one of opinion. And people look at it as something that defines a wrestler's worth, when whether a wrestler is worth watching goes far beyond championships.

There have been many Legends in WWE who NEVER won the WWF/E belt- "Million Dollar Man" Ted DiBiase, Mr Perfect, Jake "The Snake" Roberts, Ricky "The Dragon" Steamboat, Junkyard Dog, British Bulldog, "Rowdy" Roddy Piper etc. No-one questions any of these guys' status as Legends and HoFers, yet none of them won the WWE Championship.

So, why is it any different now? You can still get behind and enjoy your favourites, even if they are never champions. Who cares if your favourite wins the ultimate prize. It is nice, and you may feel that they deserve it, for all the hard work and entertainment that is provided. But they can still be your fave, even if they never achieve the ultimate.

Besides, what is the ultimate form of success in professional wrestling? Winning belts?

No, it is to be the best at entertaining the crowd, to have the eyes of the fans on that wrestler. WWE is an entertainment business, and the one who entertains by their matches, their stickwork or their charisma has achieved just as much, in some cases more, than someone who has been assigned a title belt.

"Stone Cold" Steve Austin, the Rock, Mankind and Undertaker would have been just as entertaining, and remembered, even if they never won the belt, because of their entertainment value and their ability to get everyone to care about what they said and did. The belt ADDED to their greatness, not made them great.

People should be more upset that Shinsuke Nakamura isn't getting TV time, rather than not being WWE Champion. They should be more upset that we haven't seen Dolph Ziggler for months, rather than him not being champion.

A title and main eventing are two measures of success. But there are many others. In any other sport, being the best IS by winning the championship, and then people have to like it or lump it, because who won, won.

But you can still be a great without headlining Westlemania, winning the top belt, or having the last match on PPV. You can be a great in the eyes of fans just by putting a smile on their faces, by an entertaining match or a humourous promo.

So, why does it bother you if your fave never reaches the top? Does it make them not as great? Does it matter, as long as they are still a great in your eyes.

Maybe people need to stop being upset that Cena or Roman are champions, and your favourite is not. Even David Arquette winning a belt was for storyline and promotional reasons. People need to stop being angry because Vince McMahon's opinion of a great isn't the same as yours, since, in the end, it is an opinion, and belt or not, someone can still be a great in your eyes regardless.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

I feel like it use to matter a lot before they started putting the title on whoever was the flavor of the week. The WWE title is supposed to be the symbol of the WWE. it was suppose to be put on whoever was the biggest star of the company because he was the guy representing WWE. But since the new brand split, it's pretty much just another undercard title. You look at who as been WWE champion since the brand Split. Dean ambrose, AJ Styles, John Cena, Bray Wyatt, Randy Orton, Jinder Mahal, Aj Styles, Daniel Bryan and Kofi Kingston.

Out of those name, i would say three guys don't belong in the list (Bray,Jinder & Kofi) one didn't really do much with it(dean). and Orton and cena were just transitional champ. So the only guy out of that list that actually worked as far as that title is concern was Aj styles.

The universal championship as a even worst history since Balor & reigns had to relinquish the title, Lesnar while the best champion in the short history of the title was a part time champion and Owens really did nothing for the championship. Rollins might get a good run a help the title along but for now, the championship is worth much.

The thing is, being WWE or Universal champ should mean that your the best in the company but lately it's just another title that means as much as the IC or US belt.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Since it is a scripted show that never takes a break, the titles are closer to props than some sign of great distinction. Plot device is a better term than prop for the titles. That doesn't make it meaningless, it just isn't what WWE pretends it to be. At best it is the driver for good storytelling, at worst it all you have when there isn't anything more to the writing.

But it is understandable why fans want their guy or gal to compete or hold the title. It pretty much guarantees that said guy or gal is going to get significant attention. Without the title that may not be the case.