Since the creation of Money in the Bank only 6 wrestlers have won their 1st major world title without it?now i said major meaning WWE and World heavyweight Championships. ECW Title may be a world title but we all know it was downgraded for upper-mid carders. since the creation of Money In The Bank only 6 wrestlers have won their 1st major world title without. Rey Mysterio WM 2006 Khali SD 2007 Jeff Hardy... | |
The Money In The Bank concept is good...except for one very important thing. Everybody who wins one (except for RVD who won his championship in a fair match) goes on to "win" a world title by "cashing in" on a man who can't fight back. So, we know whoever wins the next MITB match will go on to "cash in" on a man who can't fight back and will be the new Champ.
And as you point out, most of the "new" Champs are MITB winners. That kinda makes things rather predictable. We know the MITB winner is going to "cash in" on a man who can't fight back; it's just a matter of when.
The WWE needs to make the MITB thing unpredictable. They need to stop letting the guys come out to try to pin the Champ who just got ambushed/destroyed only to have the Champ kick out and then the MITB guy says "never mind", grabs the briefcase and runs away, and the "cash in" never happened. They need to stop having every damn one of them attempt to "cash in" on a man who can't fight back. They need to have some of those attempts at "cashing in" fail where the MITB guy loses his "cash in" attempt. They need to stop making it a sure thing that the MITB winner will get a world title.
The MITB match itself is a good concept as a springboard to the main events, but if everybody who wins a MITB match "cashes in" on a man who can't fight back, what did he really win? Nothing. He didn't actually beat the Champ in any kind of fair match; he just pinned a man who couldn't fight back. He gains zero credibility. Is that how the WWE wants to portray their rising stars? Not good enough to beat the Champs so they have to steal the titles in the cheapest way possible?
I have thought about this for a while and it seems like they are just using this match as an excuse just to give guys the belt as a test to see if they can hold down the strap. For example edge wins it and then wins the title and becomes a legitimate main eventer but swagger wins the title and then gets dropped down the card to the point where people probably forgot that he was a former champion.
Ever since they started this a new person has won the title every year which in a way can degrade the value of the belt. These days it just seems like all they are interested in is creating the next big main eventer by any means necessary rather then building up the tag division or letting some of the mid card guys develop into main event calober stars without the use of this gimmick to quickly elevate them to main event status. I think it's a great idea for wrestlemania but not to name an entire event after it since they already have too many gimmick Pay per view events already.
You can kind of say the same thing about the roster split in general because how many guys over the past ten years would have really ever won the title if it wasnt for the split and 2 or at one point 3 world champions were crowned.
You forgot mark henry but yes that's true i guess you made a great point money in the bank is just a shortcut to win the big one it was really cool when edge did it but now it sucks guys like not so over jack swagger and del rio won world championships
Money in the Bank was a dumb idea and needs to replaced with another concept,like King of the Ring.
mitb was a gud concept at first but now its a hand me
i dont like them for that n stuff and coz u dont like them
