From @mikedeleon: Are you for or against "part time wrestlers" being the WWE World Heavyweight Champion?
With Lesnar I didn't like the idea of it, but then when it happened I didn't mind how they executed it. Thank Paul Heyman promos for convincing me on that. I think about that amazing Lesnar title defense at the Royal Rumble this year while forgetting that there was no WWE Title match on four straight PPVs towards the end of 2014. Maybe he'd agree to work more dates if they ran with him as champ again. When Shawn Michaels was active from 2002 to 2010 he won the World Title in 2002 and held it for about one month. Apparently, Vince McMahon wanted to put one of the major titles on him again, but Michaels said no because he was only working television/PPVs and felt like it should be on people that work full-time. He had a good point. While I'm okay with part-time champions if they're booked right, what I'd rather see are more WWE Title matches on TV. It would put the champion over more while also showing that you have to watch TV every week to see if there's a title match. Having WWE Title matches only on PPV events is a mistake. To answer the question, I'm against having part-time wrestlers as WWE Champion although I think if booked right it's okay to do it once in a while. It should be the exception, not the rule.
John wrote at WhatCulture from December 2013 to December 2015. It was fun, but it's over for now. Follow him on Twitter @johnreport. You can also send an email to mrjohncanton@gmail.com with any questions or comments as well.
