The Universal Title Means More to Brock Lesnar, than Brock Lesnar Means to the Universal Title

On June 9, Brock Lesnar will become the longest reigning champion of the modern era, having held the Universal Championship since WrestleMania 33 for 435 days. He will break the record of 434 days set by CM Punk during his WWE Title run from November 2011-January 2013.

Assuming that Lesnar probably won’t even defend the title at the earliest, much less lose it, until SummerSlam, he is well on his way to putting considerable distance between himself and the Straight Edge Superstar. But in the end, how will this reign of The Beast be remembered? Not only in comparison to Punk, but in historical significance? If you ask me, Brock Lesnar may go down as the biggest name in wrestling history in which the title meant more to him than he did to the title.

If we were to debate the reigns of Punk and Lesnar, simple statistics would seem to make the case for Punk’s reign being more significant. During Punk’s 434-day title run, he defended the title a total of 141 times and appeared on 12 pay-per-views. By comparison, when Brock breaks that streak on June 9, he will have defended the Universal title a grand 10 times and appeared on 6 pay-per-views. However, the numbers here tell an even deeper story.

We are told that we live in an era of wrestling where the titles don’t matter. Many times we have heard them referred to as “props” by writers and promoters, even as early as the Attitude Era in the late 90’s by Vince Russo for example. But then why are we approaching a pay-per-view event in Money in the Bank that is designed entirely around fighting for a shot at the title? As much as we understand, now more than ever, that pro wrestling is a business, it is still based on traditional motivations. The purpose of being a wrestler is to be the best and be the champion. That’s the prize for winning the game. If there wasn’t anything to fight for, what would be the point? The championship DOES matter when it’s done right by the title holder.

My case in point is CM Punk. Punk’s title reign meant something because he made the title itself mean something. He held the championship for 434 days and did so while defending it regularly, putting on entertaining matches, and carrying the banner for the company. In those 434 days, there were 110 matches in which Punk retained the title. 110 opportunities in which the WWE said: “Punk is better than the other guy.” And in doing so, the title gained prestige. Punk took pride in being the champion, and thus the fans took pride in the championship. You knew whoever finally did unseat Punk as champion, it was going to be a big deal. Punk made the title. And in turn, he made himself as well. Fans tuned in to see if he would finally lose the title (which should be the goal of all heel champions), but Punk also cemented himself as a legit superstar and someone that the fans would care about and continue to watch and take interest in even after he had dropped the strap. He was a made man.

Contrast that with Brock Lesnar and ask yourself this question: If Brock wasn’t the Universal Champion, would he peak your interest anymore?

The novelty of seeing Brock Lesnar, a legit UFC champion and MMA fighter, run roughshod over beloved faces like John Cena is long gone. By this point, if you’ve seen one Lesnar match, you’ve seen them all for the last two years. Even intriguing matchups with the likes of Samoa Joe and Braun Strowman have gone pretty much to script. Lesnar fatigue has set in.

I would offer that the only reason most fans watch a Brock Lesnar match nowadays is only to see if/when he will drop the title and the WWE will move on from a “part-timer” as its flag bearer. If Brock wasn’t the Universal Champion, who on the current roster could he have a match with that would really peak your interest and cause you to spend money to watch? Maybe Daniel Bryan? Seth Rollins? Pickings are surely slim at best. The Undertaker and Goldberg aren’t walking through the door. The title makes Lesnar. It is the sole reason fans are invested in him and his role in the company and on RAW. Without the Universal Title around his waist, Brock Lesnar is not the draw he once was.

And therein lies another conundrum- if you believe that the Universal Title is what makes Lesnar interesting and a draw to viewers, and you are paying him the kind of money WWE is paying him, how do you take the title off of him? Why would you strip away the one thing that is keeping fans interested in him? Once he drops the belt, his days as a top box office “sure thing” might be over. Maybe the WWE foresaw this, and that explains why he is being paid per appearance. They can shelve him when they don’t need him, and bring him back when they need a shot in the arm. Or maybe we are in for a much longer title run for Lesnar than we ever might have imagined. If Lesnar makes it past SummerSlam as champion, I think it may not be until WrestleMania 35 before we see the Beast conquered.

But remember, the title doesn’t mean anything….

@KoreyGunz
@KYWrestleReport