Brock Lesnar is a world champion in WWE yet again, and it’s not difficult to understand why. He’s an absolute monster of a human being, he has a legitimate fighting background, and he brings a big fight feel to any match he’s in.
Plus, he’s got perhaps the best manager in WWE history with Paul Heyman by his side. From an entertainment standpoint, there’s no better superstar to give the title to, right?
Trending
Wrong.
New Champs in WWE! More RIGHT HERE
There are so many problems with having Lesnar or any other part-timer as WWE’s top champion. The championship would be better served around the waist of someone who actually shows up to Raw week in and week out. Someone like Finn Balor, Seth Rollins, Roman Reigns.
It makes more sense to have someone who wrestles more than a handful of matches a year as Universal Champion. And to prove it, we’ve compiled a list of five reasons why having a part-time world champion in WWE is a terrible idea.
#5 It takes away from the weekly product
Monday Night Raw is a weekly show. Meanwhile, pay-per-views happen about every month or so. So why should there be a world champion that only shows up to those PPVs and a handful of Raws? It’s unbalanced.
Fans are going to want to see a company’s top champion when they tune into the weekly show, at least once in a while. And for those that say, “Lesnar does show up once in a while! He just has a limited schedule!” – once in a while should be at least twice a month.
World champions don’t have to wrestle every night. In fact, that takes away from how special it feels when they do finally have a title match. But there is a middle ground that needs to be found here. Lesnar wrestles exclusively on PPVs, and with him as champion, that diminishes Raw as a weekly show.
Imagine tuning into a wrestling promotion you just found for the first time and realising their top champion basically never shows up. Seems like a waste, doesn’t it? WWE would do better by having their title on someone who fans can see a bit more often, for both advertising and entertainment’s sake.
#4 It takes the focus off the company’s biggest prize
One of the biggest issues with having a Universal Champion that shows up so rarely is the awkward show construction that results from it.
WWE is meant to be presented as a legitimate sport where superstars fight to win matches and championships. When the biggest prize in the company is never seen on screen and no one is talking about it, it makes things confusing.
After Lesnar won the title at WrestleMania 33, Braun Strowman confronted him and said, “I see Roman Reigns has your attention. After I’m done with him, maybe I’ll have yours.” That set things off into a month-long feud between Strowman and Reigns that was the focal point of the red brand.
Now there’s nothing wrong with that feud on the surface. In reality, it has been quite good. But to have the Universal title put on the backburner like that is just strange. To have a combat show and not have anyone actively pursuing the most important title in the company makes no sense.
The title went virtually unmentioned during the peak of Reigns vs Strowman. That can’t be happening, and it’s one of the worst effects of having a part-timer like Lesnar as champion.
#3 It removes the possibility for impromptu title defences
One of the most memorable parts of Seth Rollins’ championship reign was his open challenge that was answered by Neville. The two men put on an absolute clinic, and after Neville hit Rollins with the red arrow, it seemed like he was about to pull off the upset of the century.
Of course, he didn’t. But the match was still one of the most exciting moments of the year, and it all came about because Rollins was able to hold that open challenge. You know who can’t hold an open challenge? Someone who isn’t even in the arena, i.e. Brock Lesnar or any part-time champion.
Impromptu title defences are rare, but they’re fun to watch. The mere idea that a company’s top title could change hands in a match that wasn’t previously announced is amazing.
Even this past week on SmackDown, the Fashion Police convinced the Usos to give them a rematch. It produced a great match that had fans invested because of the implications and unexpected nature of it.
But with a champion that’s never on the show, that can’t happen. Just knowing that maybe, just maybe you could see a title defence on any given night is a brilliant concept. And with a part-timer like Lesnar as champion, that concept is thrown right out the window.
#2 It ignores the 30-day title defence rule
Let’s not pretend that WWE is consistent with its rules. They have the automatic rematch clause where if someone loses their title they have a shot to get it back, and that’s not always acted upon. They have storylines that are dropped without explanation.
But perhaps, most annoyingly, they’ve stripped superstars in the past for not defending their title within 30 days, while they allow others to just fly by with no repercussions. And from a fan’s perspective, that’s infuriating.
Fans don’t desire to see a title defence every 30 days but they would want to see a company stick to its supposed “rules” for once. And with Lesnar, they’re blatantly ignoring their own rules yet again.
WWE has stripped many superstars for not defending their titles – Daniel Bryan and Shawn Michaels are two names that come to mind. So why is Brock Lesnar allowed to go months without defending his Universal title? And no, untelevised live events don’t, or at least shouldn’t count. It's because he is WWE's biggest draw and his part-time contract included limted dates, which exempts him from the rule.
This is a problem that only exists among part-time champions like Lesnar. Every recent world champion in WWE has defended their title numerous times in a timely manner. So the lack of title defences for Lesnar as well as the lack of consequences is certainly a bit irritating.
#1 It takes opportunities away from other superstars to be at the top of the card
Why does Brock Lesnar need the Universal Championship? Spoiler: he doesn’t.
Lesnar is always going to feel like the biggest and most dominant superstar in WWE. He’s the only one who’s had success in a legitimate fighting organisation like UFC and he’s built like a truck. That means he doesn’t need the Universal title to make his matches feel like a big deal.
Any time Lesnar is on the card, it’s going to be one of the most talked about matches leading into the event. Can his opponent defeat him? Does he even have a chance? Will he end up like Randy Orton and have his head busted open?
That kind of interest that exists by default means the Universal title should be given to someone who could use it more effectively. Someone like Finn Balor or Seth Rollins who, while they are pretty big deals in their own right, could use the extra oomph of being Universal Champion.
Plus, Lesnar being champion takes away our chance to see different guys sink or swim at the top of the card. The responsibilities of being a champion are much different than just being a regular superstar. It would be great to see what a guy like Balor or Braun Strowman could do with an extended run as champion, appearing on TV every night.
Lesnar being Universal Champion just feels like a colossal waste. The title should be given to someone who can take the ball and run with it, not someone who takes the ball and runs home for months at a time.
