Again you're contradicting yourself. You say Mark Henry beating Orton clean meant something. That right there means the win meant something. The reason it meant something is because Orton is a protected star who would almost never lost clean at that point, so when he did lose clean to Henry, the win put over Henry.
Well Mark Henry would have had to beat Orton to actually win the title.
Hmm maybe I should clarify, I can understand there are meaningful victories, pretty much every first major title reign for an individual is. But I believe in the long run, loses on the other hand are very much less meaningful. In most of these big time cases will a few exceptions like Bryan losing in 18 seconds most of these big time moments are about the person winning instead of an individual losing. Austin beating HBK is 100x more meaningful for Austin as the winner than HBK the loser. If HBK had stayed around, then that lose would not hurt his status or his crowd reaction I can say the same for the Austin/Rock. The entire thing was about Austin the victor over Rock the loser.
My main point is I don't think losing hurts anyone in the long run if WWE decides to push a person. Cena's previous loses to Carlito didn't matter when he became the guy, Sheamus loss to Santino don't matter when he won his title, Big Show having previous losing to Cena or Rhodes don't matter now that he is the champ, Punk having lost to Orton don't matter when he won the title.
You may want him booked like Cena or Sheamus but I don't. I don't like how Sheamus and Cena very rarely lose. Hell Sheamus has been accumulating wins for awhile now but I truly believe Bryan is more over than Sheamus.
I keep making this point but if Bryan beat Sheamus or Big Show for the title months from now and is given a good title reign do you think anyone will even remember him losing to Rhodes or Sandow? I don't.