WWE: Brock Lesnar Squatting On The WWE Championship Title Is Good For The WWE?

Brock Lesnar is often criticized by fans as a WWE part-timer, but is it actually a good thing that the Beast lumbered off with the WWE Heavyweight Championship title without defending it on a reoccurring basis?

In a related report by The Inquisitr, Jim Ross believes it’s possible that Brock Lesnar may drop the WWE title at Royal Rumble 2015, and it’s also possible that Lesnar is playing the UFC return card in order to sweeten the deal with his WWE contract, which is currently set to expire after WrestleMania 31. It still seems like Roman Reigns will be Brock’s opponent at WrestleMania based upon the recently released promotional materials, but as always, WWE Creative could switch things around in a blink of an eye.

The WWE Heavyweight Championship title also tends to switch a lot. In comparison to the old days of professional wrestling, the WWE Championship belts are often passed around like a hot potato. There were other reigns that easily went over one thousand days, including WWE legend Bruno Sammartino, who set the record to beat with an amazing 2,803 day reign.

As a comparison, in the modern era of pro wrestling only CM Punk has come close with a WWE title reign run, and he held the belt for a mere 434 days. So Brock Lesnar’s WWE title reign has quite a ways to go before he even begins to make a dent on any record.

Still, it feels like a long time when the absence of the WWE Heavyweight Championship is so notable. But Paul Heyman has previously publicly stated that it’s a good thing that Brock Lesnar is not constantly in the ring defending his title.

“I think the WWE championship is the defended too often and lost some of the prestige because of the beast of monthly pay-per-views. The champion having to defend on every single pay-per-view, let alone at every single arena, has taken away from the special event that is when a champion defends the title…. If you present Brock Lesnar 52 weeks a year and you have Brock Lesnar defend the title 12 times a year, you’re losing money…. If Brock Lesnar were to work a full-time schedule he would wipe out the roster at once. There would be nobody left for him to fight. So how can people be clamoring for Brock Lesnar to be work a full-time schedule? Then you’ll have three hours of Brock and Paul Heyman sitting alone in a ring talking to each other because there would be nobody left for Brock Lesnar to conquer.”

Of course, statements like that are why Vince McMahon and Triple H were rumored to have told Heyman to put a sock in it, which is fairly hard to do considering how much he loves talking. Heyman’s comments also do not take into account the large fee that Brock Lesnar demands every time he makes a single appearance.

But that’s not the reason that having Brock Lesnar essentially squat on the WWE Championship belt can be good. The absence of the belt means that WWE Creative is forced to focus on building the characters instead of focusing on the hot potato game with the WWE title. The feud between Seth Rollins and Dean Ambrose draws interest despite the lack of any title on the line, and it certainly seems the creepiness factor of Bray Wyatt is being raised a notch without him having a chance at any title.

Much of the criticism being thrown at the WWE lately includes critiques of the storytelling or lack thereof. For example, Matt Hardy believes WWE Creative needs to take a lesson from The Walking Dead.

“I love WWE and respect the company. WWE gave me so much, but it drives me crazy when they insult viewers by force feeding them absurd stories. If pro wrestling wants to be taken seriously, it has to be presented as fun, yet logical, to the viewer. That goes for every wrestling company. TV has advanced so much in terms of sophisticated storytelling. Wrestling hasn’t, and viewers see through it.”

For the sake of argument, let’s also examine the reasons why having Brock Lesnar MIA is bad for the WWE. It could be argued that the belt is unnecessary if no one ever gets the chance to try to win it, which makes what’s best for business is giving all opponents a chance to become the next great thing. Some fans may argue the WWE Universe deserves a fighting champion who defends his title at the drop of a hat, not just when the contract stipulates it’s necessary.

Fans also notice when Brock Lesnar is not even willing to show up at events to give promotions. Some may ask, “Why pay $9.99 a month for the WWE Network when there is no storyline lead up to the title shot at the Pay-Per-View event that you are paying that $9.99 a month for in the first place?” It could be reasonably argued Monday Night Raw and Smackdown fulfill that role, and yet Brock Lesnar has been absent from TV, as well.

Do you think having Brock Lesnar absent can be good for the WWE if done right? How often should the WWE Heavyweight Championship be required to be defended?