7 Major Mistakes WWE Has Made With Brock Lesnar

Diehard WWE fans might have an internal clock counting down the days until SummerSlam 2018. That's very likely when our long, international nightmare will finally be over: when Brock Lesnar no longer holds the WWE Universal Championship.

By that time, it will be more than 16 months (or 504 days in WWE-speak) since Lesnar won the title at WrestleMania 33. That will be by far the longest World-level title reign since Hulk Hogan’s four-year run with the WWE Championship between 1984-88.

So why is Brock’s reign regarded more as an albatross and embarrassment than a dominant period in WWE’s history?

Simply put, Lesnar’s reign as champion has been marked more by his absence than by his dominance. That’s due to several outside factors, but it doesn’t absolve WWE from its role in turning the former UFC champion from box office bank to punchline.

Roman Reigns has cashed in the most on this, referring to Lesnar as an absent champ who is protected by chairman Vince McMahon (while referring to himself as the uncrowned champion).

That’s not the message you want to convey when you’re trying to keep your champ dominant.

Since winning the WWE Universal Championship 14 months ago, Brock Lesnar has defended it five times. It’s likely he won’t defend it again before SummerSlam, which means he will have defended it six times in 16 months, or once every 84 days.

That’s an horrendous ratio, even if you discount the old “champion must defend his title every 30 days” rule. Even defending the title at every other PPV would have yielded a higher return. Quite simply, if your top title isn’t on TV being defended, how can it be the top prize? It’s not that no one can obtain it – it’s that no one can get a shot at it.

Brock hasn’t been so much a dominant champ as a guy who has eked out his reign with minimal defenses and long periods of inactivity. He’s more of a groundhog, popping his head up every once in a great while, than a Beast.