The Great Glass Elevator

by TwisT Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:05 pm

The number of former World Heavyweight and WWE champions on show at this year’s Wrestlemania was quite astonishing. Of the 25 male wrestlers that took part, only 6 of them had never held one of the top two titles in the federation. This points to the WWE having a hugely talented roster that they can, more or less, put the strap on any one of them and let that wrestler run with the ball. The unfortunate thing is, as quoted in Highlander, “There can be only one”. Or two in the WWE’s case.

It isn’t as clear-cut as this though. Simply put, the WWE isn’t making sure that everybody has a chance to hold the title, in the interests of fair play. Even the most misty-eyed and whimsical WWE creative writer wouldn’t tell you any different.

These articles will never be used to attack how a certain federation does things. That is for the members to discuss on the forums. However, there could be two major reasons why we have had an influx of World Champions in the WWE over the last few years. And one of them does not make pretty reading.

Firstly, maybe there is no such thing as the wrestling glass ceiling anymore. Wrestlers may get big pushes, only for them to be knocked down as also-rans. Swagger, Miz and Khali are examples of this. If this is fair or not is again open to debate. Do creative not know their own mind, and are they testing the fanbase in the hope of finding a new superstar? A superstar that, not only becomes world champion, but goes beyond this and becomes a figurehead for the company for years to come. Which ultimately generates a lot of revenue for the federation with it.

If creative are testing the water; trying not to find a square wrestler to fit in a round championship hole, then that glass ceiling must have been smashed. You will get your chance at the big titles on the big stages and major main events, if you stay around for long enough for creative to have the light bulb flash above their heads and think, “let’s try him.”

The great glass elevator has replaced, for certain wrestlers in the past, the unbreakable glass ceiling.

Of course, hitching a ride on this lift to stardom doesn’t always mean that you will stay there. In fact the opposite has been true in recent years. You will get your chance to shine, but after time the “usual suspects” will rise to the top, and you will have to press the basement button on the elevator.

Even the great glass elevator has a glass ceiling that you may very well need to get through to sustain one of creative’s random pushes.

Is this due to lack of talent? There have been many wrestlers tipped for great things on the forum, but none of them have quite got there yet. The likes of Wade Barrett and Dolph Ziggler, in my eyes, could indeed be future world champions (and in Ziggler’s case, have a proper run with it). The problem lies in that we would always be tentative that they could fall from grace and have to start a new climb up the rankings.

Look at the case of the Miz. WWE Champion for the main event at Wrestlemania 27, which he won. He then lost the title at the next PPV and from then on has been meandering between upper and mid-card, only to return to Wrestlemania 28 and secure the vital win for Team Johnny. A new improved push could very well be on the cards. Or, just as likely, he could vanish in the mix once again – a former World Champion who is now, more or less, deemed surplus to requirements.

We now know, however, that the Miz only had a bit part at Wrestlemania 27. He was simply a walk on role for the John and Dwayne show. That he was the WWE champion at that point is insignificant.

This leads me to reason number two…the one that I said might well be hard to swallow. At this point in time, being a World Champion doesn’t really matter.

Too bold a statement? Maybe so. But the evidence at Wrestlemania was there to see. The obvious one first was the Sheamus epic encounter with Daniel Bryan. No more needs to be said on that match – just to highlight that it was indeed for the World Heavyweight Championship. The next example is the WWE Championship battle between Punk and Jericho. You can argue that the match was one of best on the card, but for me, it never felt like the title was what was at stake. It was simply bragging rights to be called “The Best in the World”.

Is that not what a World Championship holder should be though?

Well….no….not if the rest of the card had anything to go by. The main event was self-explanatory. Rock v Cena, a battle for the ages. But not one, for those who value the belts, for anything in particular. The streak match, although for something hugely important in Wrestlemania stakes, also gave me the impression that HHH and the Undertaker would have steamrolled any champion at that stage; such was the hostility of the bout.

By passing their most prestigious titles around like candy, the WWE have inadvertently watered down what these titles should actually mean – the best in the business, who take part in the greatest, and most hotly anticipated main events.

The possible line-up for next year’s Mania also gives me some cause for concern. It could be Austin v Punk, Lesner v Rock and Cena v Taker. If Cena against Taker is for nothing more than the streak, and if the WWE are not having a Wrestlemania full of main events, then either one or both of Austin v Punk and Lesner v Rock will be for one of the world titles.

Which means that you have two legends, one returning great and one current holder all vying for, or looking to protect, championship gold. As matches go, it is a hugely mouth-watering card……

……But where does that leave those former, and ready to be made, champions looking to ride that glass elevator to the top?

by MtotheC Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:36 pm

Enjoyable read twist and the elevator analogy is spot on! In era's gone by a potential or future star only had to smash through that glass celling thus cementing them as a 'star' and clinching a spot among the world champions elite. Now breaking through that celling once is not enough and im sure the likes of jack swagger and the miz believed their time had finally come upon clinching their first world titles and that they had 'made it' hindsight tells us this was not their big break but only a fleeting stop on the top floor.

Orton and cena have manage to remain at the top level without falling down the pecking order but these to are the exception to the rule. Maybe now with the brand separation slowly falling away the wwe can focus on quality not quantity, they need to trim the fat from the roster, unite the titles and an start to build future top guys in the correct way. The grandeur and importance has been drained out of the wwe title and this is why when people like the miz make the step up it doesn't seam that important. 16 time wold champions should be the exception not the rule!

by psycho-gooner Sat Apr 07, 2012 3:28 pm

I think my 7 year old nephew summed it up nicely

''R Truth is rubbish, he hasn't even won the world title''

by TwisT Sat Apr 07, 2012 4:13 pm

Bet he loves the Great Khali then Laugh

by talkingpoint Sat Apr 07, 2012 4:43 pm

TwisT wrote:

Too bold a statement? Maybe so. But the evidence at Wrestlemania was there to see. The obvious one first was the Sheamus epic encounter with Daniel Bryan. No more needs to be said on that match – just to highlight that it was indeed for the World Heavyweight Championship. The next example is the WWE Championship battle between Punk and Jericho. You can argue that the match was one of best on the card, but for me, it never felt like the title was what was at stake. It was simply bragging rights to be called “The Best in the World”.

Is that not what a World Championship holder should be though?

Well….no….not if the rest of the card had anything to go by. The main event was self-explanatory. Rock v Cena, a battle for the ages. But not one, for those who value the belts, for anything in particular. The streak match, although for something hugely important in Wrestlemania stakes, also gave me the impression that HHH and the Undertaker would have steamrolled any champion at that stage; such was the hostility of the bout.

By passing their most prestigious titles around like candy, the WWE have inadvertently watered down what these titles should actually mean – the best in the business, who take part in the greatest, and most hotly anticipated main events.

Great article btw but I want to come back to this point. I know some people shoot me down for making comparisons between the WWE and the UFC from time to time but I think this is another example of the paradox of wrestling. We know that wrestling is predetermined and so there is no real sporting contest and yet the industry has all the hallmarks of a genuine sport - the case in point the heavyweight title belts. So in certain ways the WWE has to act like a real sporting federation, even if in truth it is not. While storylines, character development, promo skills and all round value for money entertainment are important to the world of wrestling; there still needs to be an element of athleticism and realism when it comes to champions.

Superfights exist in Boxing and MMA and would headline any PPV, just as Rock v Cena did at Mania 28. I have no problem with them going on after the WWE title match because for all intents and purposes this was a match of champions, albeit former ones. Mayweather v Pacquiao would be a main event regardless of whether a title was at stake, again the same would be true of GSP v Anderson Silva in the world of MMA. These superfights do not take away from the world title.

Firstly lets look at the example of Sheamus v Bryan. Because this is the WWE we expect a wrestling match, with spots, storytelling and lots of signature moves. But real fights can last anywhere from 25 seconds to 25 minutes (going by UFC timings). We feel cheated that Bryan got beat in 18 seconds but in reality Sheamus is the bigger, stronger man and Bryan would stand very little chance of winning. Bryan wouldn't even be competing in the heavyweight division if this were boxing or mma! Take Cain Velasquez v Junior Dos Santos at UFC on Fox 1 - Cain, the man who beat Brock Lesnar for the title (no small feat) was beaten in just 64 seconds of a 5 round fight! Value for money? Well yes and no - it was no war but no-one can argue with the result. Sometimes short victories just happen. Does that make JDS less of a champion because it only took him just over a minute to become champion? No, he still had to beat the champion first. Sheamus beating Bryan to become heavyweight champion in 18 seconds does not diminish the heavyweight title; he still had to beat Bryan the reigning champion to win the title.

Now lets look at Punk. CM Punk has had one of the longest title reigns in recent memory. The WWE obviously have a lot of respect and trust in Punk and he's obviously a big enough draw to warrent keeping the title for so long. His match at Mania was the perfect example of simple yet effective storytelling - Punk is the best in the world, therefore he is the WWE champion. It 'elevates' the WWE title because Punk is a technically strong wrestler who is charismatic on the mic and a good entertainer. Now some may argue that Punk is the exception rather than the rule with the way the WWE treat their champions but let's not forget that Punk was effectively in the dog house after losing the HWC to Taker at HIAC 09 and that he spent the best part of two years on the losing end of high profile feuds to the likes of Mysterio, Big Show and Orton. The likes of Miz and Ziggler who have both tasted world title success and now find themselves relegated to the mid card may find future success yet. The WWE have certainly invested much time and effort into their characters and the way they are booked - Ziggler in particular always on the fringe of the world title picture. But my point is that Punk has proven the WWE title is still relevant and important in the company and the way in which they book the main event.

Wrestling is a fine balancing act between realism and fantasy and for the most part I think the WWE have got it right. The problem with the way the WWE is booked is that the world titles are defended too regularly and storylines are not given enough time. Take the Frankie Edgar/Gray Maynard trilogy - these two fought in some of the greatest fights in the UFC but their rematches were spaced out to allow the fighters time to train and prepare. In the WWE this trilogy would have been fought over a 3 month period. The title changes hands so many times because wrestlers are wrestling too often. Guys like Cena, Punk, Orton etc have to on every PPV and make every taping of Raw or SD. The schedule of the WWE is relentless and merciless. If the world titles were only defended on the big 4 PPVs it would make each fight that much more meaningful. This would give other wrestlers time to build up winning streaks, put themselves into title contention and develop reputations without being overshadowed by whoever is champion at the time. I think it is the TV and PPV schedule of the WWE that devalues the titles if they are devalued at all.

But lastly, are the titles that important if this is wrestling and not mma? If all wrestling fans can appreciate that it is a performance not a real sport then why not just accept the titles are not as meaningful as their counterparts in boxing/mma. If what truly matters is the performance and the quality of story telling ala HHH v Taker III at Mania 28 then why worry about how many times titles change hands? If two wrestlers can wrestle great matches, tell a great story and have some amazing promos in the build up to each PPV then what's the problem if the title changes hands at every other PPV? As a fan of both I have learnt to appreciate both for what they are not what they are not. The WWE is not the UFC and vice versa.

by TwisT Sat Apr 07, 2012 5:43 pm

The problem that the WWE has is that during the kayfabe period of wrestling, those world titles did certainly mean a great deal. As you rightly point out, being world champion in wrestling is a lot different from being a world champion in UFC or boxing. However it should still mean something, not only to the paying customers who buy the PPV but also, more importantly, to the other guys in the locker room.

When Miz was world champion, was he truly respected in the back? His fall from grace infers that he was not, otherwise he would have stayed at the top.

Frankly I would have hated it if Rock v Cena was for a belt, but on the otherhand I don't believe the 18 secs WHC bout did anything to elevate the two men that took part. The catch 22 situation the WWE has is that they need world champions, but they don't trust the guys enough to be the next big thing. Hence why we seem to be getting the who's who of yesteryear wrestling taking part in highly documented and overly pushed matches in the biggest of settings.

by psycho-gooner Sat Apr 07, 2012 6:04 pm

TwisT wrote:Bet he loves the Great Khali then

He actually does as well Doh

by We Want Edge Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:56 pm

Regarding talking points post the fact that sheamus beat Bryan in 18 seconds devalues his reign and his challengers I.e. Mark Henry who is bigger than sheamus couldnt beat bryan but the smaller sheamus dominates him.
I would also like to say that putting the title on wrestlers is a shortcut WWE use instead of properly pushing people.
(sorry for poor format, in a rush on my ipod

by Sponsored content

The Great Glass Elevator

The Great Glass Elevator

Re: The Great Glass Elevator

Re: The Great Glass Elevator

Re: The Great Glass Elevator

Re: The Great Glass Elevator

Re: The Great Glass Elevator

Re: The Great Glass Elevator

Re: The Great Glass Elevator

Re: The Great Glass Elevator