Dolph Ziggler and the Money in the Bank briefcase

[AnnaLove]

Do any of you even care about him holding it anymore?

After seeing him lose night and night again and again, it got me to actually give up on his 'briefcase status'. I don't even count out the possibility of him having a failed cash in attempt. It's just disappoiting to see how the WWE treats this guy, who is a true star in the ring. It seems that the WWE dropped the ball on this guy. Again we get to see how the WWE give this 'chances' to people, and quicly bury them to the ground.

[Benson]

Having him lose night and night again, pretty much tells me he's winning. Look at Daniel Bryan.

[Jwriter]

Its frustrating to see him lose over and over again, but I have no doubt he will cash in, get a huge reaction from the crowd and be successful.

[BaraaKhalaf92]

When will WWE understand that they have to build a superstar as a "winner" before giving him the belt...

Dolph is extremely talented and he definitely deserves the title, but they are dropping the ball big time by waiting this long and making him lose this much....

I don't get how they have this idea that you need to book someone as a loser before giving him the title....
And they are wondering why the titles are becoming irrelevant....

[Djm]

When will WWE understand that they have to build a superstar as a "winner" before giving him the belt...

Dolph is extremely talented and he definitely deserves the title, but they are dropping the ball big time by waiting this long and making him lose this much....

I don't get how they have this idea that you need to book someone as a loser before giving him the title....
And they are wondering why the titles are becoming irrelevant....

This is debatable. The whole idea of "building a guy" who is holding the Money In The Bank Briefcase isn't something I totally buy into.

The Money In The Bank Cash-In is all about the surprise of it happening. The unexpected moment. If a guy that has the briefcase is pretty much a main eventer already and has a bunch of wins over top talent, what would he really need the briefcase for? The MITB Briefcase isn't a title belt. It's a plot device, whose sole purpose is to upset the natural order of things.

[merle]

I've made this argument before so I apologize if I sound like a broken record but my problem with the MITB is that the winner carries the briefcase with him everywhere and constantly reminds everyone he has it. I wish someone would win it and carry it around for a week or two just so that we all are made aware that he has it (some people don't watch PPVs). Then I want him to just leave it be. Don't mention it. Don't carry it out to the ring. Just leave it alone. If we aren't constantly reminded of it, it will sort of disappear into the back of our minds. Then a few months later when he cashes it in it will be that much more of a surprise. I want to see the MITB winner coming running to the ring with the briefcase and think to myself "Oh, holy shit! I forgot that he has that". Let it be a surprise to the fans instead of it being so predictable when he cashes it in.

[BaraaKhalaf92]

This is debatable. The whole idea of "building a guy" who is holding the Money In The Bank Briefcase isn't something I totally buy into.

The Money In The Bank Cash-In is all about the surprise of it happening. The unexpected moment. If a guy that has the briefcase is pretty much a main eventer already and has a bunch of wins over top talent, what would he really need the briefcase for? The MITB Briefcase isn't a title belt. It's a plot device, whose sole purpose is to upset the natural order of things.

I'm talking about building him after his MITB win, not before....
He is a talented mid carder , he wins the MITB briefcase , they start building him as a strong competitor , and then at a surprise moment he cashes it in...

That's the correct order of events imo...

[Djm]

I'm talking about building him after his MITB win, not before....
He is a talented mid carder , he wins the MITB briefcase , they start building him as a strong competitor , and then at a surprise moment he cashes it in...

That's the correct order of events imo...

I guess I'm of the belief that that's exactly what they are doing. I don't really see the problem.

I've made this argument before so I apologize if I sound like a broken record but my problem with the MITB is that the winner carries the briefcase with him everywhere and constantly reminds everyone he has it. I wish someone would win it and carry it around for a week or two just so that we all are made aware that he has it (some people don't watch PPVs). Then I want him to just leave it be. Don't mention it. Don't carry it out to the ring. Just leave it alone. If we aren't constantly reminded of it, it will sort of disappear into the back of our minds. Then a few months later when he cashes it in it will be that much more of a surprise. I want to see the MITB winner coming running to the ring with the briefcase and think to myself "Oh, holy shit! I forgot that he has that". Let it be a surprise to the fans instead of it being so predictable when he cashes it in.

This is a great way of using WWE's mindset of treating their entire audience like 5-year olds in a much interesting way than they ever will.

Remember when people forgot about Rey Mysterio when he was gone with an injury? This would be a perfect way to do that.

[AnnaLove]

I guess I'm of the belief that that's exactly what they are doing. I don't really see the problem.

How does losing week after wee buils someone as a competitor???

[Djm]

How does losing week after wee buils someone as a competitor???

He still has the briefcase, coupled with WWE telling us that he's a competitor. I'm not saying I don't disagree with you. I'm saying fans, generally, will buy into things easily. It's probably part of the reason why they make sure the guy holding the briefcase always carries it around. He can lose and lose and lose, but cash in and become World Champion on the same night.

I don't think building someone as a competitor is important with Money In The Bank. IMO, the Money In The Bank Briefcase is supposed to be WWE's attempt at an Agent of Chaos that doesn't always fall into the typical WWE Storyline Framework. It's not supposed to be a typical way to build a guy up.

[BaraaKhalaf92]

I guess I'm of the belief that that's exactly what they are doing. I don't really see the problem.



This is a great way of using WWE's mindset of treating their entire audience like 5-year olds in a much interesting way than they ever will.

Remember when people forgot about Rey Mysterio when he was gone with an injury? This would be a perfect way to do that.

What are you talking about?
They used to build him more properly before his MITB win....
Now I can't even remember the last time he won a match...

[Djm]

What are you talking about?
They used to build him more properly before his MITB win....
Now I can't even remember the last time he won a match...

I'm talking about WWE doing a great job of causing people to forget things only to spring a surprise on them.

And again with the "build". Why does "build" matter when the whole point of Money In The Bank is that it's someone coming in and busting things up and becoming World Champion out of nowhere?

[BaraaKhalaf92]

He still has the briefcase, coupled with WWE telling us that he's a competitor. I'm not saying I don't disagree with you. I'm saying fans, generally, will buy into things easily. It's probably part of the reason why they make sure the guy holding the briefcase always carries it around. He can lose and lose and lose, but cash in and become World Champion on the same night.

I don't think building someone as a competitor is important with Money In The Bank. IMO, the Money In The Bank Briefcase is supposed to be WWE's attempt at an Agent of Chaos that doesn't always fall into the typical WWE Storyline Framework. It's not supposed to be a typical way to build a guy up.

A MITB win doesn't build a superstar and make him ready on its own....
It needs weeks of capitalizing on it....
Just look at Jack Swagger's title reign, it was on of the most awful ever, did the MITB win help him alone?
The answer is no...

[BaraaKhalaf92]

I'm talking about WWE doing a great job of causing people to forget things only to spring a surprise on them.

And again with the "build". Why does "build" matter when the whole point of Money In The Bank is that it's someone coming in and busting things up and becoming World Champion out of nowhere?

As I said Swagger did bust things around, but was it a good thing?!!

[Djm]

A MITB win doesn't build a superstar and make him ready on its own....
It needs weeks of capitalizing on it....
Just look at Jack Swagger's title reign, it was on of the most awful ever, did the MITB win help him alone?
The answer is no...

Jack Swagger was booked to fail after his reign.

And another thing, if Dolph Ziggler is as good as so many of you believe he is, shouldn't he be a good enough heel to bounce back from the losses? I mean, heels are supposed to lose. If Dolph is as good as people say he is, he should be able to lose, and than cash in on whomever the babyface World Champion is and cause total chaos...as a heel.

Jericho and Bully Ray did nothing but lose for the longest time and they were fine afterwards. Isn't Dolph supposed to be the next big mega-worker or something?

[BaraaKhalaf92]

Jack Swagger was booked to fail after his reign.

And another thing, if Dolph Ziggler is as good as so many of you believe he is, shouldn't he be a good enough heel to bounce back from the losses? I mean, heels are supposed to lose. If Dolph is as good as people say he is, he should be able to lose, and than cash in on whomever the babyface World Champion is and cause total chaos...as a heel.

Jericho and Bully Ray did nothing but lose for the longest time and they were fine afterwards. Isn't Dolph supposed to be the next big mega-worker or something?

I totally disagree with you...'
And this part of the problem with the WWE today...
Everyone thinks heels are supposed to lose, and that's why we rarely see a good heel these days...
Heels are not suppose to lose, why can't they win and look strong like babyfaces while having their bad attitude towards everyone and towards the fans?

Why should heels look weak?
Look at the heels who are "winning" these days. look at CM Punk & Damien Sandow, the 2 best heels in the company and they are both booked as winners....
Is that a coincidence?
NO

[Cybit]

Problem is, the modern WWE audience (especially the adult males) tend to cheer winners, not heels or faces. See: Mega Mark Henry push. He was doing every heelish trick in the book, but before he got injured, he started getting cheers because he was winning.

Also see: Ray Lewis, A-Rod, LeBron James, and Kobe Bryant.

[Atomic stunner]

I predict Ziggler's reign will be similar to Angle's first reign. Great matches but either through sheer luck or cheating, he will retain until someone takes it away. Figure Sheamus would win it back at the Chamber then put over Ryback at Mania.

[Greywolf]

Losing proves that he's a company man. And that he's willing to stay with them even when nothing going on positive with his character.

DB stood with WWE, while Kaval left, and now look at what happened after he had a nothing to barely nothing going on in late '10 to early '11. Same goes for Sheamus having a bad streak after becoming King of the Ring, losing PPV's and getting bumped off the Mania card, stayed still and won the rumble the next year and world title at Mania 28.

I just hope that what Ziggler had proved within the last two years, is that he's got "IT" and is a company man.

[Oncall]

If the company had no faith in Dolph he wouldnt've won MITB and he wouldn't be on the verge of a program with Cena.

[Ed]

I want to see Dolph lose his shot and see how he would bouce back from that.

[Djm]

Problem is, the modern WWE audience (especially the adult males) tend to cheer winners, not heels or faces. See: Mega Mark Henry push. He was doing every heelish trick in the book, but before he got injured, he started getting cheers because he was winning.

Also see: Ray Lewis, A-Rod, LeBron James, and Kobe Bryant.

Fair point. But people also like upsets and surprises, ESPECIALLY when the WWE has so few of them.

Some of you seem to think that Dolph losing is turning him into a laughingstock and than he should be booked just under 2002-HHH levels to look like "a threat" or "credible" or whatever.

He's fine. And he's a heel. He's are SUPPOSED TO MAKE THE BABYFACE LOOK GOOD BEFORE SCREWING HIM OVER AGAIN. It's the circle of life.

[Crippler]

I, for one, don't want to see him be like 2002 Triple H. Just be able to beat SOMEBODY higher on the totem pole than Ryder.

[Ebelegbulamw]

please i don't want to see more spoiler match of money in the bank as last time Daniel Bryan won and that was just the most embarrassing moment that i have ever seen in money at the bank. these bullshits are not suitable for this match

[The Main Event]

The hopeful part of me believes that he's losing a lot (especially to Sheamus) because Sheamus will beat Big Show, recapture the championship, Dolph beats him and it's labeled a typical cash-in title win. Then Dolph beats Sheamus again, suddenly Dolph is firing on all cylinders and he's a huge deal. Boom.