|
| Article: |
Author |
| A Cut Above |
Sean Reid |
Why no wrestler should be seen as being 'above' holding a title
Since the mid Nineties, wrestling critics and fans alike have spoken out against the act of ‘hot-shotting’ World titles from wrestler to wrestler without giving them the time to make their title reign important and meaningful. This action, in many fans eyes, has lead to world titles becoming devalued and not meaning as much as they did before the Attitude era. But another occurrence, one rarely considered damaging to the image of a company’s major title, has also resulted in said belts becoming less and less meaningful: namely, some wrestlers becoming so ‘over’ with the fans that people start believe they don’t need a run with gold around their waists.
Such a perception arguably became more apparent during the ‘death of kayfabe’, when the internet became more accessible to the average fan and they began to learn about the inner workings of the business. As a result, fans began to see world champions less as people who represent the best each company has and more as a simple prop used in a storyline to help wrestlers get more over with the audience. Because of the change, wrestlers such as The Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, Triple H and Sting no longer needed to hold a title to be perceived as the top dogs in their respective companies, which could be argued as a boon considering it opened up more ‘top spots’ for others to move into. However, such a mindset ultimately defeats the point in being a world champion, at least in FSM’s eyes.
In theory, the world champion for each company is meant to represent the very best of the best. Ask any wrestler what they want to achieve in their careers and they’ll all say the same thing: “I want to become world champion.” No-one’s likely to turn around and say they want to be at the top without getting a title reign. Achieving this goal should, again theoretically, put you in the same league as Bruno Sammartino, Lou Thesz, Ric Flair, Hulk Hogan and Stone Cold Steve Austin… but that’s no longer the case. Ask a fan in the Eighties who the best wrestler in the world was and they’d most likely say Ric Flair or Hulk Hogan – both world champions and both at the top of the food chain. In the Nineties, fans would most likely answer Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels, once again both world champions and at the top of the card.
Today though, fans are less likely to put the world champion as the best of the best. Jack Swagger, Sheamus or Rob Van Dam, while great talents, aren’t seen as being the elite wrestlers of their companies or represent being ‘the guy’ to beat. But conversely, when certain wrestlers who reach the top of the card such as John Cena or HHH hold onto the World title, fans begin to claim that giving them the gold is a waste of a spot, simply because they already put butts on seats whether they’re World champion or not.
For the rest of this feature, check out issue 56 of FSM - available at WH Smith and all good retailers. (For US readers we are now carried at Borders and Barnes & Noble, so check for local availability or click here to subscribe.)
Back to Articles Menu |
 |
|
