The OtherArena

[Jeremy Billones]

The "Money in the Bank" era either began on April 3, 2005 at
WrestleMania 21, when Edge won the first MitB match, or on January 8
2006, when Edge first cashed in and won the title, ending John Cena's
first reign which started at WM21.

Early in the MitB era, long title reigns were still common. From Sep 17
2006 to Nov 23 2008, the WWE title only changed hands in Oct 2007
(counting as Randy Orton's first and second WWE Title reigns thanks to
HHH) and April 2008. But by then the World title had already seen
shorter reigns. Once Batista's 282 day run ended in January 2006 due to
injury, a series of 100-day reigns ensued.

Since April 2008, title reigns have generally been less than 100 days.
The Undertaker went 140 days with the World title from October 2009 to
February 2010, and the longest WWE Title reign is actually Miz's current
reign (so I suppose we can't complain too loudly when Cena beats him at
WrestleMania, stopping it at 132).

Of interest to me is when a wrestler first wins a world title. I've always
considered it imperative that each year (a) at least one wrestler
wins a world title for the first time, and (b) at least one other wrestler
wins a world title for the second time. That's my rule of thumb for
'developing new stars'. In the "Money in the Bank" era, that looks like
this:

First time champions:

2005: John Cena, Batista
2006: Edge (M), Rob Van Dam (*M), Rey Mysterio
2007: Great Khali
2008: Jeff Hardy, CM Punk (M)
2009: Sheamus
2010: Jack Swagger (M), Miz (M)
2011: Dolph Ziggler (*)

Second time champions:

2006: John Cena, Edge, Batista
2007: Randy Orton
2008: none
2009: Jeff Hardy (*), CM Punk (M)
2010: Sheamus, Rey Mysterio (*), Kane (M)

(*) Title reign less than 30 days
(M) Won with Money in the Bank

(The missing MitB winner is Edge in 2007, who took Mr. Kennedy's
briefcase after the latter's injury and won his 3rd title.)

So, at the beginning of the MitB Era, "new stars" were Cena, Batista,
Edge, and Randy Orton (whose first title run was in 2004 for only 28 days)

Since 2008? Jeff Hardy has left the company, Kane is hardly a 'new' star,
Sheamus just got pantsed live on Raw, and we will eventually be
renaming the Undertaker Zone to the Mysterio Zone. Three full years
and only CM Punk to show for it.

And to the reason I wanted to write this article:

Since 2008, fully half of the 'starmaker' titles have been won using a
MitB cash-in, and the other half were less than 30 days in length.
Aside from Hardy's first, only Sheamus 'earned' either of his first two
titles, which makes this past Monday night so ludicrous, and would make
Alberto del Rio's win at WrestleMania that much more significant if it
happens (even if he does turn 34 in May).

[JAG]

Awesome breakdown.

It's a travesty how badly booked the World Titles have been in the MitB era, as you dubbed it.

It's amazing Vince is blind to this since the past three Manias (including the one coming up) will be main evented by Undertaker's streak. How could Vince not see that the streak has become the undisputed title? And he must have noticed the PPV business is in the garbage.

Fixing it would take time, but it's obviously doable since it's a work.

Jagdip

[jdw]

Cool stuff.

I tend to like te MitB concept, though not really the match itself (got tired of ladder spots in the late 90s). The notion that someone has the MITB in their back pocket is a nice one.

I know that's the Official history of MitB... but didn't Jericho have some form of MitB back in late 2003 / early 2004 when he was going through the storyline with Trish? I thought as tOA was fantasty booking how it could have been done better that involving Jericho's form of MitB was a part of it.

John

[corrado]

I rather see the MITB tradition continue at mania instead of just do a separate PPV. Its a bit of overkill and deludes the importance of the MITB briefcase.

Supposedly in its place will be a lot of multi-man matches at mania which doesnt make much sense on paper so far.

[Yakuza Rich]

Very well done, sir.

I almost never watch pro wrestling anymore, but I still remember the MITB stuff.

I don't like it at all.

There's no build to the title win. As a wrestling fan, my favorite moments were when you get caught up in the storyline and you really wonder if your favorite wrestler will win or not. MITB your favorite wrestler may win in the end, but it's such a 'quick' moment and there's no build to it.

It's also better off used by heels as a 'cheap win.' That's how it's viewed...as a cheap win. Yet they have babyfaces using MITB as well. It was a good idea for a cheap win one time.





YR

[Jeremy Billones]

[Jeremy Billones]

[Mike Campbell]

Punk started going heel after winning his second MITB in 2009. Punk was a total babyface throughout 2008.

[tdcheetah]

Wikipedia affirms the Jericho-Bischoff introduction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_in_the_Bank_ladder_match

I really liked the "ambush any champion, anytime, anywhere" concept of MitB until this year's brand split [eh, don't get me started on the brand split. Why can't Triple H go to Smackdown where I'd never see him anymore?]. MitB was like the goofiness of the old WCW Hardcore title, only with more wrestling. :P

And it elevated my new favorite wrestler, the Miz, so it still can't be all bad. ;)


Lee

[jdw]