Okay, so it’s clear; Brock Lesnar will not be competing in the WWE’s Hell in a Cell pay-per-view (PPV). One step further, reports suggest that he potentially will not be defending his title until January’s Royal Rumble, as he is not being advertised for any events for the remainder of 2014. This has evoked a tremendous amount of emotion from the WWE Universe, for a variety of reasons. Even during the mid-eighties, when Hall of Famer Hulk Hogan ruled the roost, he defended his title at high-end and live events, at least once a month. Why? Well the 30-day stipulation rule, of course! The one that states a World Champion must defend his title at least once every 30-days. This is a rule that has been fiercely enforced by the WWE since as long as I can remember.
I get that Lesnar is a part-time champion. I have come to (happily) accept the fact that he does not appear on most WWE programming, until he has to promote a PPV match. I almost prefer seeing his advocate, Paul Heyman, in his absence. What I don’t get is how WWE can ignore one of the biggest storyline factors in WWE history. Many things have come and gone in this business: characters have evolved, the look of the World Championship belt has transformed, wrestlers have retired, the WWE logo has changed, but one thing has remained a constant among the chaos—that 30-day stipulation rule. It’s like the rematch clause after someone has lost a title—it’s always enforced. The fact that the WWE is trying to brush this under the carpet because it is not able to suit the needs of a champion that does not always want to show up is insulting to their audience. Why is it that Shawn Micheals, Batista, John Cena and recently Daniel Bryan (among others) have all had to forfeit their titles, but a healthy Lesnar does not?
Now listen, I understand that this rule is really just for storyline purposes, and not necessarily included in any kind of official WWE contracts or agreements; for me it’s the principle. I would be happy if the WWE would just approach the issue head on. Surely they knew well in advance that Lesnar would be unable to defend his title until January before they handed him the gold. Can WWE creative not find something intriguing to make up in lieu of this oversight? Unfortunately, until they come out with some sort of explanation on how Lesnar is above a rule that has been written into storylines over the past 20 years or more, they will continue to demean their fans by trying to avoid the situation. This also lessens the validity of this stipulation once they do need it to meet an angle.
No Heyman at RAW does not divert this issue; it just makes the show less entertaining. Creating hype around non-title main event matches at PPVs, without giving a rhyme or reason does not excite fans. Rather, it causes them to question their WWE Network subscriptions. While the two recent RAWs have been more entertaining than usual—unfortunately The Rock cannot be at every Monday Night event; and Dean Ambrose and Cena can’t carry the burden of the show. WWE officials need to address this head on, and soon, for credibility, for storylines, for entertainment and for their long-time fans.
