PDA

View Full Version : Another World Title Thread...

True Brit Grit
07-21-2007, 01:53 PM
Sorry if this has been asked during one of the other debates on the World Title, but I sat watching Smackdown last night and started wondering - why does the WWE see it necessary to always take the title off the Champion when he's injured? It seems to have happened more or less every time a Champion has had an injury lasting more than a month or two.

I know that in this day and age, for storyline development having the title and the titleholder there on TV is important but injuries are always going to happen to so unseat a Champion more or less every time this happens is difficult, especially if the company have worked to get a Champion where he is and had previously planned to keep him there. Sometimes I think, when all it would cost is a bit of patience, it wouldn't be such a bad idea to keep the belt on a Champion even if he can't actively compete.

The benefits of having a long-term Champion are obvious - take Cena for example. We're at least all following what goes on with him. Granted his style and the way they push him means that many of us keep watching specifically because we want him to lose the belt - but we're still left watching. Likewise, you have the Cena fan base who still love him as Champion.

I realise I'm ranting a bit here and for those who either don't agree or think I'm talking rubbish then I apologise, but I can't help think that the WWE had fairly long-term plans for Edge as World Champion. Would it really have hurt for him to have done what he had to have done, and after a few weeks start appearing on TV though not wrestling? It has been proven in the past that if the company are brave enough, it is possible to have a Main Event programme without a title being on the line - and the double-brand nature of PPVs at the moment means that there's always going to be one major title up for grabs.

In essence I suppose I'm just asking for thoughts; The decision to take the strap from guys who get injured - is it necessary or just erratic?
addy2hotty
07-21-2007, 02:05 PM
I seem to remember Austin having an injury just before the start of the Invasion and he did those skits with Angle and Vince to keep himself seen.

Truth is, the powers that be think that TITLE MATCH as opposed to LIKEABLE CHARACTERS, COMPELLING STORYLINES and DECENT PERFORMERS will sell PPV's these days. Just look at Vengeance. Would Cena & Lashley be feuding over anything else other than the title. It's not personal you know. Absolute rubbish imo.

They are the millionaires, so they must be right.
Jordan
07-21-2007, 02:48 PM
I don't think Smackdown is in the position to have an inactive World Heavyweight Champion. Plus technically the rule is you have to defend it once a month so this wouldn't work.
James Steele
07-21-2007, 03:10 PM
Edge is going to have surgury,rehab, and will be out for at least 4 months. If it is a minor injury that just needs some time to heal than it is ok to keep the belt on him, but in Edge's case it wouldn't be the best thing to have 4 months of an inactive WHC.
Rob
07-22-2007, 03:31 PM
I would have kept it on Edge for 4 months and build a program like Paul Heyman did with Shane Douglas and Taz.
KingofOldSchool
07-22-2007, 03:52 PM
They could've used that time and built up MVP and the United States title.
DarKCentaur
07-23-2007, 07:13 PM
Well, for the sake of kayfabe, isn't any title technically supposed to be vacated if it isn't defended in 90 days? Or something like that, I seem to remember some sort of rule about that.
Ben Rodrigues
07-23-2007, 07:34 PM
Well, for the sake of kayfabe, isn't any title technically supposed to be vacated if it isn't defended in 90 days? Or something like that, I seem to remember some sort of rule about that.

30 days... but they completely ignored it with the Women's Title.
Pepsi Man
07-23-2007, 07:38 PM
30 days... but they completely ignored it with nearly every title on the roster these days.
Theo Dious
07-24-2007, 09:22 AM
I'll tell you this though, Edge acting as though being stripped of the title was equivalent to having to give up his first-born child did more for the belt's credibility in five minutes than Cena has done for his in a year.
Mr. Nerfect
07-24-2007, 06:00 PM
I think having a World Champion gold onto the belt while they're injured can be both good and bad. It'd be good, because Edge as World Heavyweight Champion, even though KK doesn't like him, is much better than Khali with the belt. Just have a clause in his contract that says he cannot be stripped of the belt due to injury.

This time could have been used to make SmackDown!'s other Championships mean something. Rey Mysterio could be in the Cruiserweight Division, Batista could be working in the WWE Tag Team Division, and MVP could be the brand's top singles wrestler, and brag about it, leading to tension between him and Edge, that we all want to see go places, but know won't.

If the show begins to sink without the World Heavyweight Championship, just have Theodore Long come out one night on SmackDown!, and announce that he has been talking to the Board of Directors, Edge will be stripped of the World Heavyweight Championship, not due to injury, but due to lack of title defences. Edge can come back, scream shenanigans when he is ready.
KingofOldSchool
07-24-2007, 06:30 PM
Nah, I could've seen Batista feud with MVP over the U.S. Title since Bats couldn't get the World Title, he would go after the next best thing. And MVP would be offended by saying the U.S. Title isn't second best, it is THE best.
Mr. Nerfect
07-24-2007, 07:31 PM
Nah, I could've seen Batista feud with MVP over the U.S. Title since Bats couldn't get the World Title, he would go after the next best thing. And MVP would be offended by saying the U.S. Title isn't second best, it is THE best.

That would be great, only I'd be worried that the WWE would immediately put the US Title on Batista in a way that makes MVP look like complete crap.