WWE SummerSlam 2012: Loss Hurts Credibility of Dolph Ziggler & Money in the Bank
When Dolph Ziggler first engaged in a feud with Chris Jericho, I was hopeful that it would lead to Ziggler coming out on top so that both he and the Money in the Bank contract could get the rub that they need. Jericho ended up winning at SummerSlam, however, and it is now evident that the WWE has no clue how to book someone with the Money in the Bank briefcase.
Ziggler had been getting the better of Jericho prior to Sunday, beating him in a Triple Threat match on Monday and then attacked him on SmackDown. So it wasn't a complete surprise that Y2J was victorious. If Jericho was going to win, though, then I was resigned to Ziggler cashing in successfully on a vulnerable Sheamus later in the night.
I've been a supporter of Ziggler holding the briefcase for a long period of time since he initially won it, as few Money in the Bank winners have done that as of late. But I would have been fine with him cashing in on Sunday.
The World Heavyweight Championship scene is stale, to say the least, as neither Sheamus nor Alberto Del Rio have really gotten over as main-event guys. So Sunday presented a perfect opportunity for Ziggler to swoop in.
Doing so would have superseded the loss to Jericho, and everything would have been fine. The fact that Ziggler lost and did nothing else on the pay-per-view now magnifies that defeat, however, and makes Ziggler look incredibly weak in the process.
Ziggler's entire platform throughout this feud was that Jericho could no longer win the big one. But he made Ziggler tap to the Walls of Jericho in the middle of the ring on Sunday.
The only acceptable results at SummerSlam would have been Ziggler winning the match over Y2J or having Jericho win, only for Ziggler to cash in later and salvage the night.
Will the WWE ruin Ziggler just as it did past Money in the Bank winners?
Neither of those things happened, though, so Ziggler comes out of SummerSlam as one of the night's biggest losers.
Aside from Edge, Rob Van Dam and The Miz, Money in the Bank winners have traditionally been booked quite poorly. That is probably one of the biggest reasons why a large chunk of the fanbase has soured on the idea.
Daniel Bryan last year is a perfect example. He did hold the briefcase for a solid four months, but after winning the contract, Bryan should have been put over as a legitimate threat. However, he lost to Wade Barrett at the ensuing SummerSlam instead and really didn't have a ton of momentum when he cashed in. Ziggler is now in a very similar situation.
If the writers have Ziggler hold the contract for several more months and go over a number of credible challengers, then perhaps the Jericho loss will be forgotten. But based on past performance, I'm not at all confident that things will play out that way.
The most likely scenario is that Ziggler will continue to put over veteran guys for no reason before cashing in the contract while devoid of any momentum whatsoever.
There is a reason why so many past Money in the Bank winners, such as Del Rio and Jack Swagger, have fizzled—and it isn't because those guys aren't talented competitors. It's because they weren't made to look like serious threats before winning the title. And as a direct result of that, fans didn't take them seriously as champions.
The same thing could very well happen with Ziggler if the creative team doesn't tread carefully moving forward. I would love to believe that the WWE has learned from its previous mistakes when it comes to mishandling Money in the Bank winners, but forgive me if I'm not particularly optimistic.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results, so it wouldn't a stretch to call the WWE brass insane at this point. All we can do is cross our fingers and hope that the writers rectify this situation. Otherwise, it can be chalked up as another missed opportunity, and Ziggler may very well end up on the scrap heap with other failed champs.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?