Some wrestling philosophy for you: “Some wrestlers need belts, some wrestlers don’t. The Sandman does not need a belt. I can lose every night of the week and still get over more than the guy who just beat me.”
Some wrestling philosophy for you: “Some wrestlers need belts, some wrestlers don’t.
Some wrestling philosophy for you: “Some wrestlers need belts, some wrestlers don’t.
This makes me think of Cowboy Mark Garner
I’ve always thought The Undertaker was the perfect example of this. I mean, he certainly has held the title on a few occasions, but far less than someone of his stature. But given his otherworldly character, something as mundane as a championship being a goal for him only serves to humanize him, which outside of the Big Evil/Bikertaker phase, is the exact opposite of what ‘Taker’s gimmick is aiming for.
A burial is something that makes someone look weak, stupid and uninteresting. Losing a belt is not, inherently, burying, though it’s possible to bury someone in a title match. PTP did not make New Day look like any of those things.
God, I wish people would stop using “burying” to mean “booking decision I do not like”.
Also, dude who never needed a belt – Andre the Giant. Look at that guy’s title history. It’s sparse. Partially because he was booked mostly as a traveling attraction and thus not in the title hunt, partially because he had zero need for a belt to be a draw, and partially because it was hard to imagine how he could lose in any kind of realistic way.
An additional wrinkle is that some guys don’t need a belt, but when they do have one it does magnify them. To me, Kevin Owens just works better as a character when he has a belt, even though he’s clearly no wilting flower if he doesn’t have one.