The Loser Championship: Harsh Punishment or Inspiring Motivator

[Taskmaster12]

By Robin Mendez

#RetireTheLoserBelt #StandWithKat #EndTheButchery #ElevateTheGame
These are the words that have spread through LAW and caused more discourse than you expect. Imagine this? An entire campaign built around ending one of the cornerstones of LAW, a championship belt all because a furry doesn’t like it. Katherine Hart is the self proclaimed hero of LAW. She fancies herself the star of the show and enjoys telling people how they should conduct herself. Say your prayers eat your vitamins, snack into a slim Jim, the usual stuff narcissists say so they feel good at night knowing a bunch of people do what they say. I’m not saying Kat Hart is a narcissist, I can only notice that people who tend to push themselves into the Spotlight and start making changes don’t always do so with the intentions that they claim to do it for. This latest push is to have the Loser Belt removed from LAW forever. What does that mean? Let’s discuss it in detail.

What is the Loser Belt?

The Loser Belt; sometimes called the Loserweight belt is a championship that has been part of LAW programming since before some of our champions stepped foot in LAW. The name doesn’t hide the belts purpose or intent, it is for losers. Specifically for the Biggest Loser. The belt is a prize that you don’t want. The champion must carry it around them at all times in public they receive a pay dock and they get the distinction of being known as the weakest wrestler on a growing list of elite stars and athletes from around the world. In a company with so many places to climb and take a title for yourself and become a star the loser belt shines as the bottom rung you don’t want to fall in. The Loser belt was actually the first belt crowned when Karin Shin took on Anzu for the honor. Karin Shin lost and in doing so became the first champion LAW ever had. Since then she defeated Holly Matheson to give the belt for her who arguably surpassed her as an even better champion. It’s easily one of the most iconic reigns in LAW history. Holly made even more history when she finally bested Ossi Shamur to give the belt to a fresh new face and it’s been on her ever since. Until very recently.

What’s the current situation of the Loser Belt?

Right now it’s hard to say. Ossi showed up for an interview with Lexy Alan that turned into her first title defense. Since then she’s been quiet despite this being in violation of the rules of the Title she holds. She refuses to make public appearances and we haven’t seen the belt in months. All we have are words, gossip behind closed doors, stuff we can’t put a name to as our sources. The obvious discussion is that the belt be vacated for this. Which would already be done if this was a normal title belt. With the Loser belt however we face the serious discussion that such a thing would actually be a reward and might even be what Ossi desired by no longer appearing for LAW. You could say this is the part where Kat Hart comes in.

What does Kat Hart want and why does she care about the Loser Belt?

Believe me I ask myself this question. Kat Hart is many things, a loser; at least in the sense of what qualifies a loser in wrestling, is not one of these things. It’s safe to say Kat could go her entire career in LAW and never be approached to do this match. The current third of the tag team champions has been opposed to the very ruling of the belt since its creation, a sentiment she’s been more vocal about as she’s gained prominence in LAW. With the title seemingly empty Kat has swooped in to take advantage of the dire scene to call for the belts end entirely rather than its vacation from Ossi’s waist. My guess is she sees Ossi’s refusal to appear with it as proof that it was a failed concept. If you go by her words she finds the belts existence offensive and harmful to the wrestling world. This was repeated by Madeleine Citronelle on Twitter in a tweet that got countless media attention along with the hashtags you saw at the beginning of this article. Naturally this 4 part tweet was boosted by Kat within hours and created a few bits of discussion that I felt it warranted this page to begin with. If Kat gets her way, a part of LAW history will only be history.


Is the Loss of the Loser Belt Good or Bad?

I won’t lie to you. Kat Hart is either a very good manipulative orator or a passionate but misguided fool. If she truly believes that having the belt retired is a good thing it’s up to me to warn her of the damage she will unintentionally cause this company she loves so much. If she is a manipulative monster then it’s up to me to warn you of the damage Kat intends to cause while she laughs behind closed doors.

The Loser Belt being retired is very bad for LAW. Imagine the worst thing that can happen to LAW short of it closing down. None of it matches the catastrophic ruptures in our system that this would cause. Let me break down the reasons why so you and Kat can hopefully understand. Let me start by addressing Madeleine and her concerns raised that turned this crusade into a more public affair. She sees these matches as fixed fights for lambs to be slaughtered how the loser belt fosters a culture of humiliation and how the belt is one of shame when it should be one of resilience. The Loser belt is far more than anything said here and needs to be addressed properly.

What benefits come from the Loser Belts existence?

Opportunity is the most important one. LAW has always been a land of opportunity where even the jobbers must be given a fair chance to gain the spotlight. Karin and Anzu didn’t want to be in that match that much is true. Do you think either of them would be getting a PPV match with their performances by that point if the Loser belt didn’t exist? Karin made her name as that champ and was on several major events whereas in most companies she’d be lucky to be on the undercard. Holly, Ossi, Lauren, Liger. You know these names because this belt put a spotlight on those who couldn’t find wins and who had to struggle because once people knew they’re was a prize for failure they paid attention to those people and began talking about them to see who would end up wearing the cap next. LAW is filled with people who can be categorized as jobbers, some of them seem to enjoy it. Why would they come here if the Loser Belt was a bad thing? Because for some of them it isn’t. Maybe the important thing we should ask ourselves sometime is who do we risk hurting by removing such things?

Now about the idea that these fights were fixed. I can only assume that Madeleine was looking at the early belts history where Karin lost the belt after she was attacked during her match. Or how one of her opponents was Lillian Byrne then undefeated and thus was an opponent Karin had no hope of defeating outside what would’ve been one of the greatest upsets in wrestling history. People the loser belt hasn’t been anything you can call fixed since the first year of its creation. LAW had some odd growing pains like any other company once we became more organized and less of a Wild West of a promotion things calmed down and the Loser belt has been a title for the lowest rung of opponents. Karin and Holly both have more matches against talent they could beat than they did people who you knew were going to destroy them before the opening bell. Holly was able to pick some of her opponents and name the match type, as I mentioned earlier Ossi’s turned an interview into an impromptu match against an unwilling Lexy. If the matches are fixed in anyway they’re fixed towards the loser champ! They are given more power in naming opponents than anyone else. Well anyone OTHER than Kat Hart herself (coincidence?). We should be applauding this power. It allows these losers to take on opponents at their level as opposed to being fed to talent that’ll torture them and beat them knowing they risk no chance of defeat. And it gives them more chances to win than they would have otherwise.

Onto the greatest untruth but persistent myth about the Loser belt that fosters a culture of humiliation when we should be focusing on bringing people up. If you looked at the pay cuts and the belts name you might come to this conclusion. However you need to understand the long term thinking Angie was on when she made this decision. It’s an investment, we pay talent to perform well and even a jobber needs to justify that paycheck with a victory here and there. That loss of pay and exposure with the belt will motivate a wrestler to improve more than calling them a loser does. Let’s go over examples. Liger was sick of losing and knew that eventually she would be out in that situation ask she changed everything about her and became the monster know today with Cyber Legacy. Piper Sherwood was known for being dominated in matches but had started to turn her career around since Holly challenged her. The Loser champion thinking she could beat her was the wake-up call she needed to know she was falling down a path she had no desire to be on.

Lauren Fredricks was in the infamous triple threat match with Holly and Karin and she pulled off one of her best performances ever to avoid that fate. After she got the pin and this was the first one out of the match she was on an emotional high you that can only be matched by winning a title. The two biggest successes are the two current champions. Karin Shin was a nobody you could get some loser in the crowd to fight and they’d win. The losses piled on with that belt until in the same match I just mentioned she declared that she was done fighting for all the wrong reasons and things were going to change. And she lived up to those words. She beat Holly that day and focused on her training until she was winning matches like a pro, she’s gone from nobody to potential future middleweight champion because being the loser champ showed her what’s important to her. Holly had to endure a little humiliation during her reign, despite facing arguably less challenging competitors than Karin but remained a face of LAW that anyone could name and be recognized. We all loved watching her lose while hoping she’d eventually win one. And when she did! God I don’t think we’ve heard a louder pop! The truth is that the belt isn’t a humiliation angle it’s the fire under the lower cards feet. It motivates them to do better when nothing else will. We hire all kinds of people and we need them to perform at their best. In other companies half of the people who we keep paid and fed would be fired for performing like this. LAW doesn’t want to fire anyone, no one wants anyone to be homeless so we need drastic incentives sometimes and that’s what Angie understands.

What do we lose if the Belt is Retired?

If the belt is retired I’m sure for a brief time there will be a massive sense of relief for many names. Until the months go by and they’re used less and less they get less attention and the lack of pay or worse a pink slip comes because no one cares now that they’re just a bunch of talent enchantments and we don’t need 30 of those. Furthermore this idea of punishing the belt on the false grounds of its humiliation culture opens a slippery slope that hurts what LAW’s about. We pride ourselves on providing every kind of wrestling out there. From the normal to the extremely violent and extremely lewd. Sometimes those lewd matches and stipulations are humiliating. What saves them from being removed by someone who doesn’t care about them now that it’s proven we can and will remove these things because a few people who will never be involved in them don’t like them, many other aspects of LAW will be in danger. I know some people are hoping this goes through so they too can attack LAW and remove what they hate. Maybe Kat didn’t mean for any of this to happen, maybe she did. Her intentions won’t matter once the damage is done. To anyone who honestly thinks that this action is best for LAW, I beg you to reconsider after reading this, before you irreparably harm what you love. If this was your intentions by supporting this however me be the first to tell you that you’re on the wrong side of history and if this succeeds I can only hope the worst for you.