Shawn Michaels as World Champion

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

I read here somewhere when Cena was the champion that Triple H lobbied for the belt to be put on Orton so he could beat him for it at Mania, but then Cena kept winning these matches with Orton and only had the belt removed via injury, and it was put on Orton. Then Orton had a longer than I expected reign and it's hard for me to decide whether it's still a transitional reign or a legitimate reign. One thing that points to the transitional reign concept is that Orton was never really given the "big" feuds in his reign (he had a match with Shawn at SSeries, Jericho at Armageddon, Hardy at the Rumble and Cena at NWO) before this build to the triple threat which we all assume he's jobbing the belt in. And in those month-long feuds with the aforementioned guys he was never really put over as a huge threat as champion.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Orton's reign is transitional; he got the belt just to drop it to Hunter. It's not the length of a title reign that makes it transitional, but the intent behind it. Billy Graham and Yokozuna would be good examples of long transitional reigns.

[The Truthiness 0]

It's wrestling, any champion is a transitional champion if we we're being technical. If the plan is for Hunter to lose the title too Cena or Orton at summer slam. Does that then make Hunter a "transitional Champion"?

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

If a guy gets a belt strictly to drop it someone, then it's a transitional reign. But if he's given the belt and intended to be pushed as the face of the company, even if the time he's losing the title is already decided, then it's not a transitional reign.

[BUTT 0]

According to the observer notes, both Rey and Cenas DVDs out sold his.

Not Rey's...

 

Numbers: Cena 211,000; HBK 188,000; Rey 143,000.

 

In the observer notes thread, it says HBK sold 118k.

Oh sorry, that was a typo. It was 188K.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

CONSPIRACY!!!!!

[The Truthiness 0]

Well, from what I understand the term "transitional champion" means to get the title from a face to another (more over) face, or heel to another (more over ) heel without the previous heel or face losing heat. Like when Ivan Koloff took the belt from Bruno , only to lose it to Pedro, because they didn't want to run a face vs. face match and take a chance on the crowd turning on either guy. A Transitional Champion is a guy who's really a temporary place holder for a short time, so the title could move to another over guy, without hurting the previous champion's credibility. Orton's reign might've started out that way, but I think he gained some trust with the company, and they gave him a pretty strong run with the title. Yeah, the title is going to Hunter at mania, but if Orton gets the title back some time this year, does that make Hunter's reign transitional? If Cena gets the title from Hunter this year, does that make Hunter's reign transitional? I'm pretty sure they know a head of time, who will be champion and when it will happen, so basically every champion is transitional if I go by the "A guy can hold the title for 6 months-year, but they already know who he's going to lose the title too" rule.

 

If Hardy didn't fuck up, and won the MITB like it was allegedly planned, Would whoever he ended up beating for the belt be just a “transitional champion"?

 

[Enigma 0]

The term "transitional champ" is situational and has no clear definition. Iron Sheik was clearly a transitional champion. Randy Savage's two WCW Title wins in 1999 were transitional. Yokozuna's dinky, 2-minute first reign was transitional. Kevin Nash's first WCW Title reign was transitional.

[The Truthiness 0]

That's what I'm saying Enigma. You just can't right off a title reign as transitional, because the company already knows who the champ will lose his belt too down the road. I don't think anybody will say Cena's reign in 2006 was transitional, eventhough it was reported he was going to lose too Hunter at mania 23, if he didn't get hurt in October chances are they were going to go that route at mania 24 also, but Orton came in and got over. I think it's pretty clear that Jeff Hardy was going to get a run also.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Like HTQ said, it's in the intent. If HHH is designed to be the face of the company during his reign much like Cena was in 2006/2007, then no matter when he drops it, it's a legitimate reign. However if he was given the belt with the sole purpose of having Jeff Hardy beat him for it in the spring/summer, and having Hardy be pushed as the face of the company, then HHH's reign would be considered transitional.

[garfieldsnose 0]

Who's to say WWE didn't want to push Orton as a top heel champion, no matter when they decided for him to lose it? Meltzer likes to speculate how and when Orton is gonna drop the title, but it doesn't mean it is 100% confirmed. He isn't getting reports from everyone working inside WWE, just a couple sources, right? I mean that's really what I would assume. One person's message could differ from the other.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Just look at how he was booked. Reeks too much of transitional champion. The only thing that points to "legitimate" is the length, and he probably wouldn't have gotten this long of a reign if not for Cena's injury.

[The Truthiness 0]

He was booked on top of the show since October 8th, and was used to help start the Flair angle. He went over Michaels and Hardy, and they used him to bring back Jericho. The Michaels and Jericho feuds could've been booked different, but the Hardy feud was booked brilliantly and really cemented him as the top heel on the show, and the man to beat, plus it helped get Hardy over huge. I think in the Michaels feud, they made him look kind of weak, but what heel isn't booked weak against HBK? Jericho is a tricky one, because they wanted to make Jericho's return a big deal, and the only way they thought that could happen was too book him against Orton, who was the Champ at the time. They couldn't bring Jericho in and have him lose his 1st match, and they didn't really have another good heel on Raw that they could've booked against Jericho. So really Orton was the only guy that really made sense at the time, but the thing is you couldn't have Orton lose the title to Jericho (Who was pretty awful at the time), so I could see why they went with that finish at Armageddon. But in the end it didn't really do anything for Orton, and again it made him look weak, but yet again he still stayed over.

 

Orton's reign has had some questionable booking, I agree. He was in a situation where he was the only heel on the show, that was credible enough to book 4 big storylines around, and he ended up looking weak at the time, because the faces he was booked against were all making comebacks or starting angles, which mean they had to have some strong booking. Yet eventhough he had bumps in the road, he stayed over huge and it never seem like his credibility as Champion was hurt, he was still getting plenty heat and a few cheers. Orton should've never been booked against Jericho at Armageddon. He should’ve had a true blow off match with Michaels at Armageddon, where the SCM was legal, and Orton went over again clean. The whole Jericho/Orton angle was a mess and unnecessary, and didn't help either guy, especially Orton. But since The Rumble he's been booked perfectly fine and is seen as the man to beat on Raw.

 

 

On the subject of Michaels getting the title. I think he should have one more run with the title, he probably deserves it. But I think he said he didn't want the title.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Except when he is being called out as a coward by Cena due to the DQ at NWO and in the entire build to Mania, contrast that with HHH's Mania build where ever since before the Rumble they emphasized that this year was his year to get the belt back. I'd say only the Hardy feud did anything to make Orton look tough, and even then it was sold as Jeff could have beaten Orton given any other circumstance.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Man, I'd like to have another JBL reign over a Michaels reign... I want the never ending pyro and ballons to drop weekly... I want another Cabinet, and then I want Jeff Hardy to go over and win the belt from him after a nice 5 month JBL reign.

[Boxer 0]

Yes and No.

 

Yes, storyline wise he needs to win it. Over the last 5 years he has won exactly ZERO title matches. How many times can he continue to be a #1 contender when he chokes worse than Lex Luger? Whether it was the WHC or the WWE title, he needs to win one to at least make him credible as a challenger.

 

No because he would be a part time champion and I don't know if that is needed right now. Plus how long could he reasonably carry the title at this point in his career with a brutal knee?

[foleyfanforever88 0]

Man, I'd like to have another JBL reign over a Michaels reign... I want the never ending pyro and ballons to drop weekly... I want another Cabinet, and then I want Jeff Hardy to go over and win the belt from him after a nice 5 month JBL reign.

 

Cade, Murdoch, and Burchill?

 

Anyways, I too would love to see another JBL reign, though not as long as his last one. 4 to 5 months sounds good, and Jeff being the one to take the title from him sounds even better (though that likely will never happen now).

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I suggest a simpler definition. A transitional champion is a wrestler who loses the title in the next major feud, to a different wrestler.

[Damien 0]

Absolutely not. He's past his prime and nostalgia runs are stupid.

 

and WWE, would you please abolish the WHC???? what the F is wrong with you guys???? two world titles in one fed??? are you people stupid?!!! we all live on the same planet, there should be only ONE World Champion, at least in the same federation. f'in morons, this is why ratings have been down during this "entertainment" era. bevause of stupid shit like the WHC. get rid of it and maybe the US title too, all u need are the WWE and IC titles for singles competition. Bounce the champions from Raw to SD from time to time, making it unpredictable which wrestler would be on what show. people will tune in cos they'll wanna know who'll show up.

 

and get rid of Michael Cole too. I hate that little pipsqueak

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

Absolutely not. He's past his prime and nostalgia runs are stupid.

 

and WWE, would you please abolish the WHC???? what the F is wrong with you guys???? two world titles in one fed??? are you people stupid?!!! we all live on the same planet, there should be only ONE World Champion, at least in the same federation. f'in morons, this is why ratings have been down during this "entertainment" era. bevause of stupid shit like the WHC. get rid of it and maybe the US title too, all u need are the WWE and IC titles for singles competition. Bounce the champions from Raw to SD from time to time, making it unpredictable which wrestler would be on what show. people will tune in cos they'll wanna know who'll show up.

 

and get rid of Michael Cole too. I hate that little pipsqueak

 

So what titles would you have on Smackdown? The US Title has been great over the last few years, Chris Benoit and Eddie G made it a very respectable title, I'd even say it was more 'prestigious' then the IC Title in modern times. Whilst MVP hasn't defended the US Title very much in his reign, it has helped him become a well known threat on Smackdown.

 

As for the WHC, the belt itself is amazing, it looks like a real title, I prefer it over the WWE Title.

 

Anyway, back on topic;

 

I personally wouldn't like a Shawn Michaels title run, but I know my girlfriend would. So, if I was FORCED to have one, I wouldn't mind a few months before dropping it to someone else. He can still go when he isn't pushed to do so, he still gets decent pops, and he can more then cut it on the mic. The only question is, who would he drop it to?

 

He'd win it from Orton, carry it then drop it to another heel or back to Orton? If he was to win it from Orton, I wouldn't want to see them flipflop the title between HBK and Orton, those kind of swaps have never went over with me.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

I actually thought Michaels was going to get the title at Wrestlemania 23. I was so disappointed he didn't, but if Michaels really wanted to be WWE Champion, he would've been so by now.

 

I also support a second JBL world title reign.

[luke-o 0]

it a very respectable title, I'd even say it was more 'prestigious' then the IC Title in modern times.

 

I'd agree with that for the most part, I tend to forget who the IC champ is. Hell I even forgot on several occasions when Hardy was the champ. And I'm a Hardy fan.

 

But the fact that MVP hasn't been in a fued for the US title since Matt got injured just makes the belt seem worthless. Are they trying to tell us that no one else on Smackdown wants to fight MVP for the belt?

[Garth 0]

MVP had that mini-fued with Batista where the US title was on the line though, didn't he?

What other credible faces are there on Smackdown/ECW that could have challenged him for the belt?

Kane? Seen that match up more than enough. Finlay? Involved Elsewhere with the Hornswoggle rubbish

It seems like there was no one else either high enough up the card to posed a real threat or at a point where taking a challenging for the US title wouldn't have looked like a step down.

[luke-o 0]

Fair comment, but they could have moved someone from another brand to fued for it. Or, y'know, build someone up to be a credible threat.

 

Hell, Yang was over enough to get a title shot, I wouldn't have said put the belt on him. But he was pretty over. But I guess he was in his makeshift tag team.

[Jesse Badass 0]

Chiris Jericho as World Champion.....

[Naked Snake 0]

This past Friday's SmackDown! showed that the Michaels character at least, doesn't care about titles.

 

They did the old Raw angle before WrestleMania 13 where Hart and Sid were fighting for the title with Austin and Undertaker trying to interfere to make sure their WrestleMania 13 match was a title match.

 

Only on this SmackDown! in 2008, Batista and Undertaker were fighting and Michaels cost Batista the title, instead of trying to make him win it so Batista/Michaels could be a title match.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

No. They mentioned if Batista won the title, he'd get his match switched to facing Edge at Backlash. The Shawn match would have been voided. That's why Shawn interfered, so that their match would still be on.

[geniusMoment 0]

The world champ has to make the house show dates, HBK wants no part of that. His body simply won't allow it, consequently he won't get more than a cup of coffee with the belt, and it seems he realizes and is happy with that.