[Mr. Nerfect]

In my adolescent years (it feels weird saying that about such a modern era concept), I loved the Money in the Bank concept. When it first sprung up in 2005 as the kayfabe brainchild (although it turns out he did help produce the idea) of Chris Jericho as a way to get six Raw guys not doing much else into a match that could potentially steal the show, it was a pretty grand idea. Three of the guys had won a belt before, but three hadn't. I thought of all of them as fairly solid workers. Kane isn't anything flash, but as the one big man in there to bounce out the styles, he made sense as an addition.

Initially, the rules of the gimmick were not properly established. We knew it was for a shot at the World Heavyweight Title at any time, but did Edge need to announce it? When he came out at the end of the New Year's Revolution Elimination Chamber in 2006, it felt like a rare moment of a wrestler actually thinking and following a gimmick through to its logical conclusion. Is it a cheap way to win a belt? Sure. But that suited Edge as the slime-ball he was portraying. As a one-off Machiavellian scheme when the belt hadn't been traded in for a lifeline so many times, it actually made sense. But for a long time I've had some nagging thoughts about the gimmick:

1. When loopholes like these are exploited, doesn't it make sense to rectify them in subsequent years? This is just like the Rumble title shot that Benoit used to jump over to Raw. It is cute the first time, but wouldn't WWE lawyers logically make sure the wording is fixed next time. "It's for a title shot at your brand's recognized World Championship." "The winner receives a predetermined title shot in the date and location of their choosing."

2. Does a new champion -- babyface or heel -- get anything out of cashing in on a downed champ and finishing them off when someone has already done the hard work? What do they really prove? Is that too old-school a point, and is simply getting possession of a belt the point?

3. Does the gimmick deliver diminishing returns based on how predictable it is at being unpredictable? Doesn't it feel a bit cheesy to have all these briefcases that basically promise a wrestler a title run down the line like a special power in a video game? While Cena couldn't have known what was to come, how can anyone be surprised when they hear "Mr. Money in the Bank's" theme music hit as they are struggling to get to their feet? Shouldn't they have taken precautions against this?

4. Don't these multi-man Ladder Matches kind of blur together now? While everyone usually busts their ass and the result is always "fun," is it possible for them to really stand out as Ladder Matches?

Let's look at the winners and the matches:

Edge: As I said above, I think the gimmick was used quite intelligently by Edge. As the first Money in the Bank, the match itself actually stands out. Shelton running up the ladder is a spot most people remember. I'm not sure if this was the first Spider-Man springboard either, but I seem to recall it, but he may have done that the following year and I might be conflating the two. I am fairly certain it happened here though. I think I remember the finish too, with Benoit closing in on the briefcase and Edge hitting his injured arm with a steel chair. That bastard.

Rob Van Dam: He announced his title shot in advance to give himself the home-field advantage at ECW One Night Stand 2 (ridiculous PPV name). This made sound psychological sense for a babyface and as a promotional tactic. RVD would win the WWE Title, but then got busted for drug possession, ruining his own push. Let's chalk this one up to him and not the company or the gimmick. I don't really remember this match.

Mr. Kennedy: His push did get derailed, but that was due to misdiagnosed injuries, actual injuries and his own idiocy. Edge got the briefcase and cashed in on Taker. This was the same thing as the first one, but it was Edge's "thing" to do. Underwhelming, but alright. All I remember from the match where Kennedy won was him doing his Lambeau Leap to Hornswoggle or something and Matt Hardy threatening to give Sharmell the Twist of Fate in order to get Booker T to jump down and not win. What a guy?

CM Punk: This was rumored to go to Jeff Hardy, but he went and got himself suspended. One of the more memorable MITBs from a match perspective. I remember Morrison doing the moonsault with the smaller ladder and Carlito's face after him and someone else just pushed someone through another ladder and broke it. I think it might have been Shelton. I remember Matt Hardy running in and stopping MVP from winning. Matt Hardy: Money in the Bank spoiler. I think the finish was Jericho getting his leg stuck as he was upside down and Punk climbing above him to win. Punk cashed in on Edge, which was somewhat ironic, and while I did like Punk at the time, his World Heavyweight Title run was not very successful or memorable.

CM Punk: I remember nothing about this match. Punk's cash-in was, this time, a lot more memorable with it being a heel turn. Punk was a wonderful heel opposite Jeff Hardy in 2009. But Punk's World Heavyweight Title reigns were largely forgotten by the WWE, and by the time you get to Punk in 2011 and onwards, they don't mention them at all and it's all supplanted with "the longest reigning WWE Champion of the modern era" taglines and such.

Jack Swagger: I really liked Jack Swagger as a guilty pleasure. I do realize that this is guilty now though. He won it in a 10-man shmozz and had trouble unhooking the case. He also started cosplaying as Kurt Angle for about two weeks before going back to the darker singlets. He cashed in on Chris Jericho, which I remember, but his his World Heavyweight Title run is best remembered for "The Swaggie" sandwich. He's no longer with the company and no one really cares about him. I remember the drama around Wade Barrett and Drew McIntyre almost not making the match more than the actual match.

The Miz: People remember him as a former Money in the Bank Winner, I suppose, but this does have the advantage of being the first PPV based around the concept and the first guy to hold it coming out of the show. He cashed in on Randy Orton when Nexus was the hottest issue, feuded with Jerry Lawler again and had a stinker of a main event against John Cena and has never had another run since. People have seemingly turned a corner on him since, but that really started in 2016. For the rest of that time, he was largely considered a blight on the WWE Title's history. I remember nothing about this ladder match.

Kane: Already about as established as Kane can get by 2010. He would be pushed as The Devil's Favorite Demon and get a title reign that lasted quite a while for his "thank you" run that arguably shouldn't have happened (this is coming from a reformed Kane mark), and he still isn't even gone 8 years later. I don't remember anything about the match.

Daniel Bryan: I love Bryan as much as the next guy, but his win really did feel like it came out of nowhere. Promising to cash-in at WrestleMania, I thought he was going to have the "wrestling match" while Cena and Rock had the big spectacle. Seemed a sound strategy. He cashed in on Big Show, turned heel and became a surprisingly entertaining heel champion, but no one really took him seriously as a main eventer. He lost to Sheamus in 18 seconds, which pissed off people to the point that they started to get more interested in Bryan. The bad-booking backlash helped Bryan more than the briefcase or World Heavyweight Title win. I remember little bits about this match, because I've watched it with keen eyes back because of Bryan winning and the PPV generally being really good. Heath Slater did a corkscrew pescado and Sheamus killed Sin Cara.

Alberto Del Rio: I wanted to like Del Rio at the end of 2010 and start of 2011 -- I really did. For a while some sort of tough guy confidence would seep through occasionally. But after he lost to Edge it felt like he was just another guy talking about destiny. He won the briefcase, got a little while with the belt, but it's kind of forgotten about along with Punk's first WWE Title reign outside the Money in the Bank 2011 win as an interruption you kind of just ignore. I remember nothing from the match.

Dolph Ziggler: This felt like a proper elevation at the time. He got to defend his briefcase against John Cena. It really felt like he was gaining traction for a while. People wanted Dolph to get there. He was fluffing about with Kane, Daniel Bryan and Big E in a thrown together Tag Title match at WrestleMania 29, and the pop he got for cashing in the next night on Raw against cold babyface Del Rio (and our previous winner) was massive. His reign was turd though. He got injured and never got back to where he was ever as hot again. Also, Ziggler's cash-in was his second run with the World Heavyweight Title too. WrestleMania crowds really started to stand out the year before as mainly smarks, so this was another chance for them to be smarks. I remember nothing about the actual match.

John Cena: I had to look this up and remind myself who won the Raw one in 2012. This was one where only former WWE Champions could enter. I don't remember anything about the match, except I remember them trying to make Big Show a threat during this period. Cena was already established.

Randy Orton: This continued their trend of having an already established guy winning one of the briefcases. I don't remember the match.

Damien Sandow: He now works in TNA. I think.

Seth Rollins: This feels like a much larger skip forward in time. I guess The Shield really brought us into the really, really recent era. Daniel Bryan has been WWE Champion by this point. I guess it's pre and post Reigns. I don't remember much about the match, despite it being so recent, other than Kane helping Seth Rollins win. Seth did cash in during the Mania main event "finally" doing that as an exit strategy for a Roman Reigns push that wasn't working. Rollins, who did look good holding the briefcase, got a long reign as champion, but it was terribly booked and he lost all the time. He won the WWE Title a second time for a few seconds, but he's never gotten back to where he was. He might be about to get another push as a babyface, but how dependent is it on memories of his run with the WWE Title and not his most recent work as the horse on Raw where he actually wins matches?

Sheamus: I don't remember the match. I don't remember Sheamus with the briefcase. I don't remember his title reign beyond it being horrible and short. This was his fourth or fifth run with a belt at this point, having first won in 2009. I don't know if we can call him "established" as he is the mid-carder with the most World Titles to his name of all-time (unless you count Del Rio). That's got to be someone though, right?

Dean Ambrose: I don't remember the match. He didn't really get a run with the briefcase as he cashed it in that night. His WWE Title run was awful because they had presented him like a geek since WrestleMania that year and he spent most of his time interacting with pot plants, James Ellsworth, and getting upstaged by AJ Styles.

Carmella: I have no desire to ever see this match. Carmella won because being good doesn't matter, and she's cashed in on Charlotte, making her look bad, the belt look bad, and everyone she beats look bad. Can this be considered a success for the moment though, since we live in a post-quality era?

Baron Corbin: I don't remember the match, I had to think about this for a minute even though it happened only a year ago. Corbin failed to cash in on Jinder Mahal -- the weakest WWE Champion of all-time -- so it is obvious that this was just a giant waste of time. Corbin might get pushed again another day, but it has nothing to do with being elevated by Money in the Bank.

Am I naive in thinking that the briefcase is supposed to elevate people? Is it simply a sports entertainment plot device designed to pop a random crowd and change champions when they don't have anything with genuine emotion built up? I'll give the gimmick Edge. RVD never got as high again. CM Punk would become a main guy years later after distancing himself from World Heavyweight Title runs. Bryan is much the same story. Kennedy never got there. Swagger never got there. Sandow never got there. Del Rio and Sheamus are Del Rio and Sheamus. Ziggler never got there. Orton, Cena and Kane were already established. The Miz hasn't gotten there again and it's been long enough to not credit Money in the Bank with it should they push him again. His wife has done more for him than the briefcase. Corbin didn't pan out. Ambrose is a mid-carder. Seth Rollins is a mid-carder, but I'll give the gimmick him, because they stuck with him forever and he seems to be loved and positioned as someone that makes the main card of WrestleMania every year.

Who do you consider MITB successes? Should you just look at the moment and not the ultimate fate of the guy? But is it just me, or is the gimmick fairly useless as a tool beyond creating that one pop and switching the belt off a guy without giving away a match yet. You could just do a match. Wouldn't that benefit everyone more? When people are surprised to see you as the champion, it can be a dangerous a thing. You should inspire a little bit of confidence as the champion, which is a nuance that a lot of the booking around the briefcase too often forgets. The gimmick has become a WWE tradition, like the Royal Rumble, but would it be better suited to be put into mothballs until there is a guy that could actually use the gimmick to get over -- like Hell in a Cell should ideally be used?