KB’s Review: I Don’t Get It

Over the last year, a lot has changed in WWE. Be it new talent debuting, people moving up or down the card and some new storylines, things have certainly been moving around. One of the constants though has been Charlotte dominating the women’s division on “Monday Night Raw”. Another constant though has been her losing the title, only to win it back again. This happened again earlier this week and I don’t quite get it.

Earlier this week, Bayley defeated Charlotte in the main event of “Monday Night Raw” to win her first Women’s Title on the main roster. The loss marked the end of Charlotte’s FIFTH Women’s Title reign (remember that the last Divas Title reign and the first Women’s Title reign are considered separate despite Charlotte never losing the title) and the fourth time she lost the title on “Monday Night Raw”. Every time she has won the title back at the following pay per view and every time it’s taken less than a month.

All three of the previous instances saw Sasha Banks defeating Charlotte to win the title but this time it’s Bayley. What I don’t understand is why this is supposed to be anything different. Why should I believe that Bayley isn’t going to drop the title right back to Charlotte at “Fastlane 2017” in early March? That would put Bayley’s reign at 20 days, or the same length as Banks’ most recent one.

So in other words, we’re right back to the same place we were as we went into “Roadblock: End of the Line.” And “Hell in a Cell 2016”. And “Summerslam 2016”. I know it’s a different champion this time around but I really see no reason to believe that the title is going to stay on Bayley this time, especially not after the buildup seems almost entirely the same.

They have an interesting idea going as Charlotte is virtually unbeatable on pay per view and has never lost a pay per view title match. I understand the idea of someone beating her at a pay per view for the first big win in the major moment but what I don’t understand is the idea of switching the title every few months. Did we really need to have Banks win the title three times and Bayley at least once, all of which could wind up being less than a month long reign?

Banks seems to be just fine but Bayley has a very different kind of character. Her whole thing is that she loves the idea of being a wrestler and only wants to be champion despite being in over her head most of the time. Consider back at “Takeover: Brooklyn” when she won the Women’s Title. It felt like a big moment because it had been built up so well. Bayley hasn’t even been on the main roster for six months yet and she’s already won the belt. That really defeats the point of Bayley’s character and it’s really going to lessen the reaction if she winds up winning a bunch of titles.

I really don’t get the appeal of just throwing these title reigns out there. Banks and Charlotte have been on the roster less than two years and they already have eight title reigns between the two of them. If Charlotte wins the title back at “Fastlane 2017”, that makes ten title reigns between three women in about a year and a half. To put this in perspective, Trish Stratus and Lita combined to win eleven titles in just over six years. They’ve cranked it up a bit no?

Getting back to Bayley, how does this really help her? It gives her a first title reign but in WWE, it seems like it doesn’t mean anything unless you have about five more to go with the first. This is similar to the days of the original Brand Split with the titles changing hands all over the place. With people regularly having twelve or more title reigns, it doesn’t mean anything to win a handful here or there. That’s rapidly becoming the case with the modern Women’s Title. With Charlotte and Banks having eight between them, one really doesn’t mean all that much.

The other thing I don’t get is why Bayley had to win the title here. Doesn’t it make more sense to wait until a bigger moment? Like, say, that big show down in Orlando where Bayley can be in front of a lot of her fans and FINALLY beat Charlotte on pay per view, thereby proving all of her critics wrong? Now instead of throwing the title on Bayley like this, let’s consider a longer form story.

So let’s say Charlotte retained the title this week on “Monday Night Raw”, perhaps thanks to Dana Brooke’s interference. If she keeps the title, we’ll assume it sets up the rumored four way with Banks vs. Bayley vs. Nia Jax vs. Charlotte at “Wrestlemania XXXIII” for the title. I would have Banks defeat Charlotte in the four way for the title with Charlotte being allowed to claim that Banks needed the outside help to win the belt.

After that, have Banks defeat Charlotte in a one on one match on pay per view to confirm her status. Then you can do the rumored Banks heel turn because she knows she’s the best, setting up Bayley vs. Banks for the title at “Summerslam 2017” in Brooklyn. This gives you multiple possible options, both of which make the title seem like that much bigger of a deal.

First of all, you could just have Bayley win the title in a rematch of their classic at “Takeover: Brooklyn”. If that’s not your cup of orange juice (I’m not a tea guy), have Banks retain and establish herself as the new dominant force in the division. This lets you build someone else up for the next title shot while Bayley goes back to the drawing board and rises up the ranks again, eventually winning the title in a huge moment, perhaps at “Wrestlemania XXXIV”.

Or instead we could just give her the title on a random episode of “Monday Night Raw” in mid-February with a week’s build and two people interfering. Sure the match was very good but it didn’t feel big, which is an entirely different matter. On top of that, there’s no reason to believe that this is going to be any different than the previous three times this has happened. In other words, if it’s not on a pay per view, none of this really matters because it’s something we’ve seen multiple times in the last few months.

I really don’t get what they were shooting for on this one but it screams short sighted booking with little to no thinking put into it. Maybe they can turn it into something special later (or maybe they’re just trying to give Charlotte twenty title reigns by the time she’s thirty five) but at the moment, it’s really nothing that I’m all that interested in seeing. Call me crazy but I’d rather be in a long form story instead of just having the fast title changes for the sake of setting up another title change in a few weeks.

 

Remember to check out my website at kbwrestlingreviews.com, follow me on Twitter @kbreviews and pick up the History of the WWE’s Big Four Pay Per Views, now in PAPERBACK. Check out the information here:

http://kbwrestlingreviews.com/2017/01/27/kbs-reviews-now-available-in-paperback/

And check out my Amazon author page with cheap wrestling books at:

http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Hall/e/B00E6282W6