Does Miz already look weak as WWE Champion?

[Quintastic One]

The way people have been trying to justify his title win makes it sound like he's the best thing to happen to the WWE.

I think the problem is more that you strongly believe that the Miz doesn't deserve this title reign. So the fact that some people strongly oppose your strong opinion, makes you believe that they are hyping Miz more than they really are. They simply disagree with you and have to raise the bar of intensity to match the amount of energy you put into your arguments. I don't think Miz is being overhyped.

But I do believe that he looked incredibly weak in his match with Lawler. If he can only get by on the skin of his teeth against a guy like Lawler, who has lost rather easily in the past to guys like Nexus, Chris Jericho, Randy Orton & Legacy, then how would he fair against Goldust? Evan Bourne? Yoshi Tatsu? These are all guys I'd consider on a higher level of the RAW totem pole than Jerry Lawler. And if Miz can't beat Lawler without Michael Coles help, then there's no way I can believe that he can defeat Yoshi Tatsu or Zack Ryder.

They are going to have to work HARD to rebuild him after this.

 

[THE Brian Kendrick's Biceps]

Yes, he does look weak, but I don't think it's entirely because of the title win, nor is it because he had to have Michael Cole interfere for him to beat Lawler. The problem is that regardless of how well he's been built up, he, at least to me, still has that midcard stigma. Admittedly I'm not a massive Miz mark, although I do find him entertaining. I just don't feel he belongs as WWE Champion, and until he's booked in a way to make me feel otherwise, then yes, he does look weak as champion.

 

[chessarmy]

I think the problem is more that you strongly believe that the Miz doesn't deserve this title reign. So the fact that some people strongly oppose your strong opinion, makes you believe that they are hyping Miz more than they really are. They simply disagree with you and have to raise the bar of intensity to match the amount of energy you put into your arguments. I don't think Miz is being overhyped.

But I do believe that he looked incredibly weak in his match with Lawler. If he can only get by on the skin of his teeth against a guy like Lawler, who has lost rather easily in the past to guys like Nexus, Chris Jericho, Randy Orton & Legacy, then how would he fair against Goldust? Evan Bourne? Yoshi Tatsu? These are all guys I'd consider on a higher level of the RAW totem pole than Jerry Lawler. And if Miz can't beat Lawler without Michael Coles help, then there's no way I can believe that he can defeat Yoshi Tatsu or Zack Ryder.

They are going to have to work HARD to rebuild him after this.

You may be right, but I still think the story of the match was that Miz could have won at any time but he got overconfident and kept trying to inflict more damage, this is something nobody should overlook.

Regardless of any of that, I still think it was a questionable move booking this match just 1 week into his title reign.

 

[CMS]

That's the entire point, for him to look weak and to be a not credible WWE Champion.

That being a good decision is what the argument should be about.

 

[The Legend Killer]

For some reason, WWE has a BAD problem with making their heel look like crap when they're champion. Unless your name is John Cena, Batista, The Undertaker, or Triple H, WWE will not let you look good as champion. I think The problem with The Miz is he got pushed too soon and the people that actually wanted him as champion now realize "Well shit, I only said it because I didn't think WWE would actually do it. Ah shit!" You can only go so far with calling yourself awesome all the time. WWEs problem with pushing new stars is they put entirely too much time in making the same 4 or 5 people champion, and then when someone new does become champion, they haven't really established themselves yet and the fans resent them.

 

[CMS]

...which is exactly the reason why they are portrayed as undeserving. Title on the line or not, nobody would buy Miz just simply beating Cena or Orton.

 

[THE Brian Kendrick's Biceps]

But why would you have someone as an undeserving champion like that? It benefits no one. Anyone who loses to them looks weak, while the champion also looks weak due to them not deserving the title. The guy who beats the champion doesn't benefit either. He was simply supposed to do it.

 

[CMS]

The logic behind it would be that the champion starts as undeserving and then after getting a couple of wins over guys under their belt, slowly they start changing that perception, right on time for the feud for him to drop the belt. What you say would happen if the champion is kept weak thoughout his entire title reign.

See for example Randy Orton 07. He started as an undeserving champion, defeating HHH after three matches and then getting himself DQed with HBK, only to then finish as a dominant champion having defeated everybody. Then see Jack Swagger, portrayed as undeserving the entire reign.

It's up to WWE on how they book The Miz, but it's alright to have him start as an undeserving champion. No one would believe if now just because he got the belt he starts pinning Orton and Cena cleanly.

 

[THE Brian Kendrick's Biceps]

The logic behind it would be that the champion starts as undeserving and then after getting a couple of wins over guys under their belt, slowly they start changing that perception, right on time for the feud for him to drop the belt. What you say would happen if the champion is kept weak thoughout his entire title reign.

See for example Randy Orton 07. He started as an undeserving champion, defeating HHH after three matches and then getting himself DQed with HBK, only to then finish as a dominant champion having defeated everybody. Then see Jack Swagger, portrayed as undeserving the entire reign.

It's up to WWE on how they book The Miz, but it's alright to have him start as an undeserving champion. No one would believe if now just because he got the belt he starts pinning Orton and Cena cleanly.

So in the process of building him up, others must suffer due to losing to a guy that looks far from credible? Ridiculous. That's only going to harm those who fall to Miz. Meanwhile, if you book him strong to begin with, then you have no problem. He looks strong all along, thus feels like he belongs, while others don't suffer.

The Orton comparison is WAY off. Was Orton looked upon as an undeserving champion? In a way, yes, but also no because he was the guy that took Cena out. Instant credibility right there. What is Miz? He WAS a guy with a solid build who COULD HAVE been built up to beat Orton cleanly in a title rematch with the way he's solidly moved up the card and it could have been sold that he had become that good with his title history in recent years to back it. Instead we have a guy who is just going to either look bad or make others look bad. The same problem plagued Sheamus, because while I love the guy and he has benefited in the long run from winning the title when he did, his first reign has also hindered him from ever feeling like a true top-line talent, thus why his last title reign was lacklustre. Why would you want to afflict another young heel with the exact same curse? It's asinine.

 

[Axis]

But why would you have someone as an undeserving champion like that? It benefits no one. Anyone who loses to them looks weak, while the champion also looks weak due to them not deserving the title. The guy who beats the champion doesn't benefit either. He was simply supposed to do it.

Historically, I think that's inconclusive. With Jack Swagger, you could be right. He did not benefit by looking weak as champion. He ended up getting very little rub from his reign. On the other hand, the booking of Sheamus was excoriated for making him look too weak. There was a full thread about it, and this wasn't the only forum. Everybody was convinced that Sheamus was getting nothing out of it. Time would show that such beliefs were bullshit. Sheamus is a real top player now, all because of those reigns where he supposedly looked weak.

So, I don't think one can necessarily say that, if a champion is booked to look "weak" (and, Jesus Christ, we're ONE WEEK into Miz's reign), then they will not benefit. I think it has to do with who the person is. Swagger failed to take advantage. Sheamus succeeded in taking advantage. Only time will tell with Miz. But given his work ethic, I am inclined to believe that he will benefit from this title reign, whether or not he's booked like Orton, Cena, or H would be.

 

[Pavitar]

I don't understand why fans are failing to understand this simple concept; the Miz is booked as a weak and beatable champion. Not all main event wrestlers are "Super heroes like John Cena, Hulk Hogan, Triple H (to a certain extent) and Orton. The Rock and Stone Cold are both excellent examples of wrestlers who weren't impossible to beat as main event wrestlers. In my opinion, this is better since fans have a harder time preditcting whose going to win.

 

[Hometown Kid]

James is totally right, having a weak champion devalues not only the title, but the entire company, and almost never works out for the best. To those saying Sheamus benefited from his title reign so much, How is feuding with Santino and JoMo and winning a meaningless KOTR is better off than feuding with Cena and winning the WWE Title!? Sheamus gets heat because he can cut good promos and is a very good wrestler in the ring, not because of his crappy title reigns. Sheamus even talks about injuring Trips more than his title wins. Things would be much better for him had he been booked stronger and not like a "bully" who can only beat mid-carders.

Miz as champion sucks already and will likely accomplish nothing, and next year he'll be working with a still not over Morrison or Santino. He'll probably lose to Orton at TLC so it won't be as lame as one of Edge's ridiculous Smackdown title reigns and will do little harm to the title/company.

Overall, vulnerable champions are played out and totally useless in 2010.

 

[Beer Money Army]

The Miz championship reign was probably be very quite similiar to JBL reign. Unsure if it will be the same length. But JBL needed help for basically every c'ship match and it help JBL get over more, while he was very strong with his Promo's and Getting heat!!!! This will be Miz Job as WWE Champ, gain more heat with his Promo's and how he work out his character towards the crowd. Inwhich will make people Pay to see him get beaten up and lose the belt. His championship reign won't be having awesome matches nor will it be having clean wins.

It's an old trick WWE has been using on heels for 20+ years, I am unsure why people are bitching about it.

I am not a fan of the Miz, But i get WWE point with giving him the Championship. December PPV are usually one of the least Purchase PPV's in Pro Wrestling, so why not do something different and Save the best for next year.

 

[Axis]

James is totally right, having a weak champion devalues not only the title, but the entire company, and almost never works out for the best. To those saying Sheamus benefited from his title reign so much, How is feuding with Santino and JoMo and winning a meaningless KOTR is better off than feuding with Cena and winning the WWE Title!? Sheamus gets heat because he can cut good promos and is a very good wrestler in the ring, not because of his crappy title reigns. Sheamus even talks about injuring Trips more than his title wins. Things would be much better for him had he been booked stronger and not like a "bully" who can only beat mid-carders.

You are misunderstanding the example of Sheamus. The argument is not that he's in a better position now than he was fighting Cena (though his heat has now been established as here to stay, and now at the whim of who he is feuding with). The argument is that he is better now than he was before he was fighting Cena. When he was feuding with Cena, the program was shat on for making Sheamus look "weak" and like a "paper champion." The people who argued this were under the impression that being in a main event program with Cena, while not looking as strong as Cena, was bad for Sheamus. This argument was lead by people like Adam, if that says anything of it's validity. Time showed that this argument was incorrect and ignorant of the long-term effects. Sheamus, just by holding the title and working with main events stars, got a huge rub and is now a mainstay player. I am still not a huge fan of Sheamus, but it would be silly for me to ignore the fact that he is one of (if not THE top) heels on Raw.

It is funny that there is a simultaneous argument going on that 1) Miz is being booked to look too weak, and 2) Miz was pushed too quickly. These are contradictory. I actually believe that Miz was pushed to the top too quickly, and I would have liked to see him in a solid upper midcard long-term program before winning the title. To me, any argument that he should be booked like the Ace overnight is hardly a legitimate one.

 

[Hometown Kid]

Sheamus could have been in just as good/if not better a position now without ever being booked weak though. In fact he would be a top heel on Raw if he wasn't booked as such a chump. Plus Raw's so weak on heels and Sheamus is barely in the top 3. He could have been a real monster, that could have built up to a HUGE money match to see a face finally end his reign of terror. He would then be more over and elevated someone else. Right now he's the Swagger of Raw. He deserves better than that. And i'm all for pushing someone to the top fast, but there's no reason for someone who's undeserving to be champion, thus making the title look worthless and uncredible. The title should be protected, since it's something everyone can relate to being important. Does Miz get heat? Sure. But he's not perceived to be important to the fans, which the champion should be, heel or face.

BMA: You realize JBL's title run killed off 1/4th of SD's viewing audience... :/