Paul Heyman says having a part-time champion like Brock Lesnar will restore prestige to the WWE title

Not sure how he does it, but Paul Heyman continues to deliver interesting opinions and discussion-worthy takes on a variety of topics on his media tour promoting his new WWE-produced DVD, Ladies and Gentlemen, My Name is Paul Heyman.

One of the things his Looking for Larry agency should do is coach athletes and entertainers on how to follow his lead, and not respond to media questions with rote, boring answers.

Anyway, Heyman was at it again late last week in an interview with Scott Fishman published in The Miami Herald.  In among insight into his approach to the DVD and some rare public bragging about his two children, he cut a promo on fans who don't want to see Brock Lesnar defeat John Cena for the WWE World Heavyweight Championship at SummerSlam because they don't want "another part time champ".

He employs the strategy he told us about on the July 21st edition of Raw, "I don't just stand out here and spew hype and hyperbole; I exploit historical facts to shove my points down your throats":

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.

Here is the best example I can give you. Why don't we just do 12 WrestleMania events a year? I mean it's the brand name in pay-per-view. You know people understand that WrestleMania means it's something special and unique and doesn't happen all the time. It's can't miss. Well, you can't do 12 WrestleMania events a year because then you water-down WrestleMania, and it won't mean as much on the rare occasion you present the brand name WrestleMania.

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.

If that doesn't sell you on it, he's got another angle.  Lesnar as an occasional presence on WWE programming is best for the rest of the roster, and you the fan:

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.

Whether you're buying it or not, the man who predicted the end of Undertaker's undefeated streak on the Grandest Stage of Them All has another prediction for you:

I see sports entertainment headed into an era dominated by the conqueror that is Brock Lesnar, who will main event...WrestleMania after WrestleMania after WrestleMania until he is tired of doing so.

Whether you agree or disagree with his perspective, Heyman is on fire here...I just wish there was video accompanying the interview.

But do you agree or disagree with the Advocate here, Cagesiders?  Would a champion who only defended the WWE's main championship every second or third PPV make you care more about the belts, or cause you to lose interest in the product?