Is losing better before you cash in MITB?

**Peter Kaymakcian** · 02-14-2012, 02:01 AM

The last four MITB were Kane, The Miz, ADR, and DB. Now Kane's length of holding the MITB Briefcase was to short for this study, but before cashing in MITB ADR was being booked as a credible threat picking up wins left and right, while the Miz went on a losing streak before cashing in and same with Daniel Bryan. Now ADR's title reign only lasted until one PPV, while the Miz's and Daniel Bryan's both lasted at least until two PPVs and both maybe will last until WM. More proof is look at CM Punk's first cash in compared to his second one. In his first cash in he was on losing streak from ECW and into Raw, not like DB's, but a losing streak none the less. Now this cash in resulted in a three PPV reign as champion, while in his second cash in he was on a winning streak when he cashed it in and didn't pick up a single pin fall victory during his second cash in and lost the title in a month and a half. So my question to you IWC. Is it better to be a loser before cashing in your briefcase?

**The Brown One** · 02-14-2012, 02:26 AM

I'd rather that the MITB holder have lost a couple and won a couple of big matches before they cash in. It's not believable if someone like Bryan, whos been losing for months suddenly wins the world title and start's winning his matches. And it's annoying when someone like Sheamus (even though he hasn't won MITB) wins every match for months before he cashes in.

**Adreme** · 02-14-2012, 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by Peter Kaymakcian

The last four MITB were Kane, The Miz, ADR, and DB. Now Kane's length of holding the MITB Briefcase was to short for this study, but before cashing in MITB ADR was being booked as a credible threat picking up wins left and right, while the Miz went on a losing streak before cashing in and same with Daniel Bryan. Now ADR's title reign only lasted until one PPV, while the Miz's and Daniel Bryan's both lasted at least until two PPVs and both maybe will last until WM. More proof is look at CM Punk's first cash in compared to his second one. In his first cash in he was on losing streak from ECW and into Raw, not like DB's, but a losing streak none the less. Now this cash in resulted in a three PPV reign as champion, while in his second cash in he was on a winning streak when he cashed it in and didn't pick up a single pin fall victory during his second cash in and lost the title in a month and a half. So my question to you IWC. Is it better to be a loser before cashing in your briefcase?

Del Rio suffered from the fact that he cut the exact same promo like the EXACT SAME promo since his fued with rey myserio ended. It wasnt even that good of a promo and he just oozed boredom and lacks any sort of charisma that you need a champion, be they heel in order to get crowd to truly hate you long term. or face to get the crowd behind you for beating up the heel.

Miz was successful because he had that presence on the mic that truly made you hate him to the point where punching him in face got Riley to be one of the most cheered faces in the company despite having 0 other accomplishments so far to his career. Daniel Bryan benefits from having amazing ability in the ring and in being compared to the Big Show who frankly also lacks any real charisma. His overall weakness is that the story he is in, using his girlfriend to further his own ends, hasnt really had the payoff of us knowing this for sure. The payoff moment if done well could cement Bryan as a monster smackdown heel for years to come if done right but it feels like they are putting it off but the point is that they had a charisma factor that Del Rio lacked and the losing streak had nothing to do with it.

**Peter Kaymakcian** · 02-14-2012, 02:55 AM

Originally Posted by Adreme

Del Rio suffered from the fact that he cut the exact same promo like the EXACT SAME promo since his fued with rey myserio ended. It wasnt even that good of a promo and he just oozed boredom and lacks any sort of charisma that you need a champion, be they heel in order to get crowd to truly hate you long term. or face to get the crowd behind you for beating up the heel.

Miz was successful because he had that presence on the mic that truly made you hate him to the point where punching him in face got Riley to be one of the most cheered faces in the company despite having 0 other accomplishments so far to his career. Daniel Bryan benefits from having amazing ability in the ring and in being compared to the Big Show who frankly also lacks any real charisma. His overall weakness is that the story he is in, using his girlfriend to further his own ends, hasnt really had the payoff of us knowing this for sure. The payoff moment if done well could cement Bryan as a monster smackdown heel for years to come if done right but it feels like they are putting it off but the point is that they had a charisma factor that Del Rio lacked and the losing streak had nothing to do with it.

But its not just these guys. Look at Edge's two cash ins. The first one he was winning matches and looking credible, but his reign lasted only one month. When he cashed it in a second time he didn't have as much momentum and that world title reign lasted longer as well, three months by the way. All I'm saying is that there seems to be some sort of correlation between losing and longer title reigns in MITB. I know the WWE doesn't do it on purpose, but that is just the way it works out I guess.

**Peter Kaymakcian** · 02-14-2012, 02:57 AM

Originally Posted by The Brown One

I'd rather that the MITB holder have lost a couple and won a couple of big matches before they cash in. It's not believable if someone like Bryan, whos been losing for months suddenly wins the world title and start's winning his matches. And it's annoying when someone like Sheamus (even though he hasn't won MITB) wins every match for months before he cashes in.

Agreed except I think maybe its supposed to show how momentum in the form of one quick cash in can turn a career around. I mean look at the New York Giants they where 7-7 and then got momentum on their side and won the SB. Then again I'm probably giving the WWE writers to much credit.

**The Brown One** · 02-14-2012, 03:35 AM

Originally Posted by Peter Kaymakcian

Agreed except I think maybe its supposed to show how momentum in the form of one quick cash in can turn a career around. I mean look at the New York Giants they where 7-7 and then got momentum on their side and won the SB. Then again I'm probably giving the WWE writers to much credit.

It's not exactly a good idea for turning a career around. Let's take Ted Dibiase for example. What if he won MITB? It wouldn't be believable, since hes sucked for over a year. But it can be helpful to your career. Just wish that they would push great talent without having to use the Royal Rumble and MITB. Kinda like how they pushed Ziggler.

**MR Boss** · 02-14-2012, 07:38 AM

MITB is one of the best things WWE created, but they should have not made a PPV even if it was the best ppv of the year here is why. The way I see it is if WWE does the MITB every year then sooner or later it's not going to help superstars anymore, you can't just give them a briefcase after they had a awful year or repeated bad matches. They can't expect every superstar to get over whith the crowd just like that. I think they should just put it on every Wrestlemania, and just leave it as that.

**The Piper** · 02-14-2012, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by MR Boss

MITB is one of the best things WWE created, but they should have not made a PPV even if it was the best ppv of the year here is why. The way I see it is if WWE does the MITB every year then sooner or later it's not going to help superstars anymore, you can't just give them a briefcase after they had a awful year or repeated bad matches. They can't expect every superstar to get over whith the crowd just like that. I think they should just put it on every Wrestlemania, and just leave it as that.

WWE is too bad to create MITB, it was all Jericho's idea.

**Peter Kaymakcian** · 02-14-2012, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by The Brown One

It's not exactly a good idea for turning a career around. Let's take Ted Dibiase for example. What if he won MITB? It wouldn't be believable, since hes sucked for over a year. But it can be helpful to your career. Just wish that they would push great talent without having to use the Royal Rumble and MITB. Kinda like how they pushed Ziggler.

I 100% agree with you on the reality thing, but I don't think WWE is concerned about being reality based as long as they can produce an amazing story out of it. And what is the greatest American story? An underdog coming out of no where and taking their respective sport/field by storm. Look at Tim Tebow, Jeremy Lin, Rocky, and Rudy. Americans love a great underdog story and I think that is what MITB is suppose to represent. An underdog getting his shot. I do hate it because with the WWE its not so much an underdog story, because the WWE is scripted, but I think the WWE will continue to do it to make money.