WWE: Brock Lesnar Should Ignore The WHC Title 30 Day Rule, Says Paul Heyman

When it comes to the WWE, Brock Lesnar is a notable part timer, but now he has a shot at defeating John Cena at SummerSlam 2014 in order to grab the WWE World Heavyweight Championship belt. Unsurprisingly, Paul Heyman says this is not a bad thing, but goes one step further and suggests that it might be a good for the WWE to allow Lesnar to hold onto the WWE title for longer than usual.

In a related report by The Inquisitr, Dave Batista blasted Brock Lesnar for being a part timer because he hated how Brock ended Undertaker’s streak only to disappear from the ring. John Cena criticized Lesnar in a similar manner on Monday Night RAW, portraying himself as a company man who is just protecting the WWE from a man who fights only for money and not loyalty.

If you look at Brock Lesnar’s WWE schedule list in 2014, it only includes two confirmed showings for Monday Night RAW and of course SummerSlam 2014 is coming up next weekend. But considering that Lesnar typically only shows up for major WWE PPV events, this might mean that a victory at SummerSlam will allow him to keep the Championship belt until WrestleMania 31 or Royal Rumble 2015.

Paul Heyman spoke to The Miami Herald recently and the manager claims Brock Lesnar should not be prevented from taking the WWE World Heavyweight Championship title just because he is a part timer:

“I don’t know if any of those critics of privy to an agreement Brock Lesnar may or may not have with WWE. So I don’t understand how anybody can credibly say this is what Brock Lesnar’s schedule is going to be when he becomes the WWE champion. Second, I think the WWE championship is the defended too often and lost some of the prestige because of the beast of monthly pay-per-views. The champion having to defend on every single pay-per-view, let alone at every single arena, has taken away from the special event that is when a champion defends the title.”

Heyman seems to be referencing the WWE’s 30 day rule that says a champion must defend his WWE title at least once on TV or on PPV within a 30-day mandatory period or will be forced to drop the belt. For example, in 1993 Shawn Michaels was stripped of the WWF Intercontinental title due to going past 30 days. Now if the WWE tag team titles are not defended for 30 days then most fans won’t notice, but if Brock Lesnar ignores the 30 day rule then management better watch out.

Brock is supposedly a special case, according to Paul Heyman, who argues that having the WWE title defended so often actually waters down the meaning of the belt. As an example, he says the WWE does not use WrestleMania every month as the name of the PPV events because it would water down the brand name. Maybe it’s just bluster, but Heyman believes having Lesnar in the ring too often in order to defend the WWE title would be a bad idea:

“It’s the same with Brock Lesnar. If you present Brock Lesnar 52 weeks a year and you have Brock Lesnar defend the title 12 times a year, you’re losing money. You’re not making money because you are watering down the unique opportunity that the audience can have to see an once-in-a-lifetime athlete on the rare occasion that he dons the tights and laces up the boots and goes into the ring to beat people within an inch of their lives. Plus, here is one more thing to consider. If Brock Lesnar were to work a full-time schedule he would wipe out the roster at once. There would be nobody left for him to fight. So how can people be clamoring for Brock Lesnar to be work a full-time schedule? Then you’ll have three hours of Brock and Paul Heyman sitting alone in a ring talking to each other because there would be nobody left for Brock Lesnar to conquer.”

I’ll let everyone else digest and spit out that nugget, but it should be pointed out that the WWE does have a history of ignoring the 30 day rule. Not a single wrestler with the Heavyweight title has ever had their title removed specifically due to the rule, although some may argue the way Daniel Bryan was handled with his injury may come close enough. There are other examples, though. When Dwayne Johnson won the WWE title on January 27, 2013 at Royal Rumble he defended the title once on February 17, 2013 at Elimination Chamber, but then he went without defending it until WrestleMania on April 7. CM Punk also technically violated the 30 day rule several times during his 434 day reign between 2012 and 2013.

Do you agree with Paul Heyman that part timer Brock Lesnar should be allowed to keep the WWE World Heavyweight Championship belt for longer than usual if he beats John Cena at SummerSlam 2014?