The Pros and Cons of a Part-Time Champion

Part-time wrestlers may be one of the most controversial aspects of modern professional wrestling today. They can be a great way to bolster a card to some, or a way for younger talent to be shafted to others. The issue itself is already controversial, but it is even more of a contested topic when a part-time wrestler is a champion. The best example right now is the WWE Universal Champion, Brock Lesnar. The question often arises when Brock Lesnar’s reign is being discussed: should part-time wrestlers be world champions? To figure this out, I have decided to break down the pros and cons of a part-time champion in an attempt to find an answer to this question. Brock Lesnar as Universal Champion will be the case study for this article.

Pro 1: Star Power

When a pro-wrestler is successful enough to work a part-time schedule, it is typically because they have become a massive star in the industry, or even pop-culture in general. Brock Lesnar is an example of this, and that star power benefits the championship. Whereas someone like Jinder Mahal may make fans less interested in the WWE Championship due to his lack of popularity, Brock Lesnar is an established name that draws attention to anything he does. More people will be paying attention to the Universal Championship when Brock Lesnar is champion than if the champion were any other full-time wrestler of today.

Con 1: The Implications of his Absence

By having a champion who isn’t around, it can make it seem as though the champion doesn’t care about his title. While this isn’t a problem in MMA, since it is common for there to be a long period of time between fights, WWE has much different standards. Most champions appear on a weekly basis, so having one that doesn’t due to their schedule, gives the impression that they aren’t interested in defending their title. This makes the Universal Championship seem unimportant. When the champion is as reclusive as Brock, who is unlikely to make media appearances talking about how much he loves being Universal Champion, it certainly doesn’t help.

Pro 2: A Lesser Risk of Becoming Stale

In a company like the WWE, which runs two weekly shows on television and dozens of shows on the WWE Network, it can be easy for things to become stale and boring. Overexposure is often cited as one of the biggest problems in WWE today. A champion that doesn’t appear often can avoid this hurdle more easily. Brock doesn’t have to worry about audience fatigue nearly as much. Instead, the novelty of Brock Lesnar becomes a treat in and of itself.

Con 2: Less Memorable Moments

One of the benefits of having a long-reigning champion is that the reign has the potential for numerous memorable moments. These moments make a championship reign great. CM Punk’s 434 day reign as WWE Champion is often brought up as a great championship run not just because of the length, but because of the numerous feuds and highlights within it. By having a part-time champion, the amount of lasting memories that can be created is significantly diminished. Even if Brock Lesnar holds onto the WWE Championship for a year, he will be deprived of numerous opportunities to put on great matches that a champion working a full-time schedule would be able to take advantage of.

Pro 3: Challengers are Elevated

Because a title defense from a part-time champion is rare, only a lucky few receive them. During Brock’s reign as WWE Champion, only John Cena, Seth Rollins and Roman Reigns received title matches. However, as it is currently being demonstrated by Samoa Joe, facing a part-time champion grants an air of prestige to the challenger. When someone like Samoa Joe is deemed worthy to face Brock Lesnar, this has much more importance than if he were deemed worthy of facing someone like Roman Reigns. Challengers also must be booked as credible threats, which means people like Joe will be booked as if they are in the same league as a major star, as shown during the brawl between Joe and Lesnar. This helps get Joe over much more than if he were to have the same feud with any other full-time champion.

Con 3: Shows Feel Less Important by Comparison

While every new challenger that steps up against Brock may feel important, the shows in which he is not featured feel significantly less worthwhile. When a company like WWE makes a habit of defending its world championships on every PPV, then suddenly has no world championship match, the show feels like it can be skipped. Weekly shows are also hurt. When Brock isn’t there, it is almost guaranteed that stories involving him will stay stagnant. This simply makes the show less interesting to watch.

The Verdict:

The cons of a part-time champion are pretty significant. However, I do think that the cons can be overcome with careful booking. I believe this is done best by maximizing the champion when they are there, and always keeping the title in focus when they are not there. The build up to the Extreme Rules PPV was a good example of how to make the title seem prestigious by having various main eventers vying for it. However, Lesnar’s absence during the build up to Payback was an example of how bad the cons of a part-time champion can be: there was barely any mention of it and it seemed as though no one cared that the top championship was missing. If Brock Lesnar defeats Samoa Joe, and then retains over whoever his opponent for Summerslam is (most likely Braun Strowman), I would advise that the WWE have Lesnar defend every-other PPV. When he is not on the show, the main-event can be used to determine a number one contender, like at Extreme Rules. This makes the title seem prestigious constantly and can keep fans mostly invested, regardless of Lesnar’s presence. That is how a part-time champion can work.

To quote Paul Heyman, "Accentuate the strengths and hide the weaknesses."

---

#FrancescoViolaIII #WWE #2