King of the Ring vs. Money in the Bank
By Scott Keith on September 28, 2012
Hey Scott,
With the discussion of Jack Swagger, it got me to thinking that the Money in the Bank winner today is like the King of the Ring winner except much worse. In both cases, WWE wants to push a midcard guy to the main event level with the easy way out. Sometimes they are successful like with Owen, Brock, and Kurt (KotR); and Edge, RVD, Bryan (MitB). However, in many cases, he is just not there yet. With the KotR winner, if he flops at the next level, no big deal. Examples of this would be Mabel and Billy Gunn. Sometimes the KotR winner is just not ready to be a main eventer but would be in a year to a few years like HHH, Edge and Steve Austin. Imagine if Edge, Austin, Mabel or Gunn won the world title through a KotR win, it would hurt their careers because they are not good enough to be a world champ and be seen as a joke (like Swagger) or just too soon to be world champ (Punk's first reign or Miz). If Austin had won the title in the fall of 1996, his rise to main eventer and eventual title win at Wrestlemania XIV would not have been as special. If HHH won his first world title through KotR, his reign would be just way too soon. Alberto del Rio, Dolph Ziggler, early CM Punk, Miz, Daniel Bryan, and even Jack Swagger would have made great King winners because it pushes them to the next level without forcing WWE to make them world champ. Thoughts?
Comments are disable in preview.