Mr. MITB not happy with Lesnar's absence

[The GOAT]

I can't believe people still complain about the 30-day title defense rule lol. I know it was just earlier this year that they used it as a convenient reason to strip Daniel Bryan of his championship, but still.

Technically speaking, the 30 day rule is already violated at least two or three times a year. For example, it usually takes five weeks (sometimes six) to build up to the Rumble and usually six weeks to build towards Wrestlemania. That's more than 30 days. Other PPVs throughout the year will sometimes randomly have a five-week build as well. There was five weeks in-between Night Of Champions and Hell In A Cell for example, meaning that even if Lesnar HAD defended the strap at HIAC, he would have still violated the rule by going more than 30 days in between title defenses.

 

[Prince Bálor]

I can't believe people still complain about the 30-day title defense rule lol. I know it was just earlier this year that they used it as a convenient reason to strip Daniel Bryan of his championship, but still.

Technically speaking, the 30 day rule is already violated at least two or three times a year. For example, it usually takes five weeks (sometimes six) to build up to the Rumble and usually six weeks to build towards Wrestlemania. That's more than 30 days. Other PPVs throughout the year will sometimes randomly have a five-week build as well. There was five weeks in-between Night Of Champions and Hell In A Cell for example, meaning that even if Lesnar HAD defended the strap at HIAC, he would have still violated the rule by going more than 30 days in between title defenses.

In addition to that, he'd be at least defending it at every PPV.

 

[Majour]

I can't believe people still complain about the 30-day title defense rule lol. I know it was just earlier this year that they used it as a convenient reason to strip Daniel Bryan of his championship, but still.

Technically speaking, the 30 day rule is already violated at least two or three times a year. For example, it usually takes five weeks (sometimes six) to build up to the Rumble and usually six weeks to build towards Wrestlemania. That's more than 30 days. Other PPVs throughout the year will sometimes randomly have a five-week build as well. There was five weeks in-between Night Of Champions and Hell In A Cell for example, meaning that even if Lesnar HAD defended the strap at HIAC, he would have still violated the rule by going more than 30 days in between title defenses.

It could be amended to ppv's a CM Bryan said. But maybe they should stop using it altogether, especially since the current champ barely shows. Using it for injured champions I get, but I'd rather they just showed some consistency for a change.

 

[Prince Bálor]

It could be amended to ppv's a CM Bryan said. But maybe they should stop using it altogether, especially since the current champ barely shows. Using it for injured champions I get, but I'd rather they just showed some consistency for a change.

Yes... I agree.

With Lesnar gone, they don't even/barely throw the name of the WWE World Heavyweight Championship out there.
When Lesnar shows up, people are gonna be like 'What the hell is Lesnar holding, what is that thing?' lol

 

[Red Rain]

I can't believe people still complain about the 30-day title defense rule lol. I know it was just earlier this year that they used it as a convenient reason to strip Daniel Bryan of his championship, but still.

Technically speaking, the 30 day rule is already violated at least two or three times a year. For example, it usually takes five weeks (sometimes six) to build up to the Rumble and usually six weeks to build towards Wrestlemania. That's more than 30 days. Other PPVs throughout the year will sometimes randomly have a five-week build as well. There was five weeks in-between Night Of Champions and Hell In A Cell for example, meaning that even if Lesnar HAD defended the strap at HIAC, he would have still violated the rule by going more than 30 days in between title defenses.

It wasn't defended at house shows?

 

[Wacokid27]

Point 1: Of course these comments are kayfabe. Nearly every comment you see a current WWE talent make publicly will be kayfabe. Somehow, when they appear on Austin's podcast or Ross' podcast, this doesn't necessarily hold true. But outside of a very limited type of publicly-broadcast media, every statement, interview, promo, tweet, FB message, and whatever the hell else the kids are doing these days are kayfabe. Think of it all that way. It makes it easier.

Point 2: Stripping somebody of a title due to a "30 Day Defense Rule" (which was never a thing in the olden days) is not cool. Invoking it is lazy writing. If you can't think of another way to get a title off of a guy either due to a legit injury or for a kayfabe reason, you need to take a creative writing class. Honestly, a guy who has been injured and will be out for a long time? Take 5 minutes out of a 3-hour show and actually explain that he has suffered a legitimate injury and will be handing off the title (it has happened before; see: Batista, Edge) before returning to the rompin' stompin' world of kayfabe is fine. If it's a storyline reason and you have to invoke some unoriginal clause to get the title off of him, quit your job and go sell life insurance somewhere. You're more suited to that. In short, eliminate all discussion of this "30 Day Defense Rule". Let it die the death it so richly deserves.

wk

 

[Wacokid27]

It wasn't defended at house shows?

When they strive for consistency and somebody remembers it (although I think we as fans should just go ahead and forget about it and WWE should do the same; see above post), this was usually the excuse given.

wk

 

[The GOAT]

It wasn't defended at house shows?

Yes, but anything that happens at a house show is considered unofficial unless they actually acknowledge it on the main shows. I know I'm nitpicking, but still.

 

[u_cant_c_me]

I still wanna see Rusev/Lesnar - just to the see the beasts go head to head.

that would be a good one I would see that

 

[Jonathan]

Just thinking about who would put up a good credible fight in a loss to Lesnar... right now, Sheamus could probably do it. Ryback, Swagger are two guys also but I doubt many people want to see them take up a rare Lesnar match. But yeah, Orton-Lesnar where Rollins tries to cash in, fails (but retains the briefcase), Cena trying to help, but getting finishers from EVERYONE (even Michael Cole plz) would be great.

How can you even use credible and Swagger in the same paragraph. For somone to fight BROCK LESNAR.

:facepalm:

 

[CFCrusader]

How can you even use credible and Swagger in the same paragraph. For somone to fight BROCK LESNAR.

:facepalm:

Swagger's a big guy, former World Heavyweight Champion and given the right push like Ryback could job to Lesnar. I wouldn't mind.

 

[Prince Bálor]

Swagger's a big guy, former World Heavyweight Champion and given the right push like Ryback could job to Lesnar. I wouldn't mind.

Yeah, I totally agree with that. I'm all up for something new, than having Cena vs Lesnar for the 49th fucking time.
But I guess WWE couldn't be arsed to build Swagger as a threat to Lesnar. So, that's out of the window.

I'm still pulling for Lesnar vs Cena to happen at TLC and end that feud, then have Orton vs Lesnar at the Royal Rumble.